[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 86 (Friday, May 3, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28124-28698]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X02-100503]



MTC-00027805

From: Sudha
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:04am
Subject: LOGICAL EXPLANATION--;Freedom to Innovate
    Below are comments to specific issues addressed in the Court 
Case, http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-settle.htm#docs
    Item #2: Someone else please invent a better operating 
system than Windows! Also if MS Windows has monopoly, what about 
Intel--;would they be ``monopolizing'' the intel chip 
market?
    Item #3: A better operating system will always win the user 
market.
    Item #4: How ridiculous! When Netscape owned 70% of the 
market, was it not a monopoly?
    Item #7: Java is very difficult to learn. Training is 
unaffordably expensive.
    Item #11: Netscape is NOT the browser innovator--;give 
credit to the real innovator, please!!! (universities!)
    Item #18: Microsoft has a right to ``tie'' all ITS 
products together! Integrating applications makes better use of 
system resources.
    Item #24, 25: As long as Windows is the operating system 
used, the creator of Windows, who is Microsoft, has the right to 
present it anywhich way to the users as they please--;basic 
human right of ownership!
    Additional Comments: Seems to me like other vendors like IBM and 
Sun and Netscape had nothing to complain about as long as THEY owned 
the lion's share of the market. Their products were difficult to use 
and hard to learn.
    Microsoft brought the computing technolgy to the layman's door 
making it possible for the total computer illiterate people to be 
able to actually use the computer in effective and efficient ways, 
which would have been totally impossible otherwise!
    Sudha
    Database Administrator
    Department of Human Oncology 
    Telephone: 608.263.1549
    Email: 
 
[email protected]



MTC-00027806

From: Bartucz, Tanya Y.
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 11:03am
Subject: Tunney Act Comments
    Attached please find the Association for Competitive 
Technology's Tunney Act comments on the Microsoft settlement. A 
paper copy has been submitted by fax.
    Tanya Bartucz
    Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP
    1501 K Street, NW
    Washington, DC 20005
    (202) 736-;8067
    Fax (202) 736-;8711
    This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information 
that is privileged or confidential.
    If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail 
and any attachments and notify us immediately.
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    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 OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR COMPETITIVE TECHNOLOGY
    The Association for Competitive Technology (``ACT'') 
hereby submits its comments on the Revised Proposed Final Judgment 
(``RPFJ'') that has been proposed by most of the 
plaintiffs, including the United States, and defendant Microsoft 
Corporation. ACT is a trade association representing some 3,000 
information technology (``IT'') companies, including 
Microsoft, on a number of issues important to the industry. ACT's 
mission is to promote a vibrant, competitive IT industry and a 
vibrant IT marketplace in which consumers, not the government, pick 
winners and losers. Because ACT believes that, on balance, the RPFJ 
will be good for both the industry and consumers, it supports the 
RPFJ. ACT also opposes the radical proposals advanced by the 
remaining plaintiffs because they would harm the industry and serve 
no other purpose than to advance the interests of such Microsoft 
rivals as Sun Microsystems, Oracle, and AOL Time Warner.
    INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
    The purpose of a Tunney Act proceeding is to determine whether 
the settlement that the federal government has entered into is 
within the reaches of the public interest. United States v. 
Microsoft Corp., 56 F.3d 1448, 1460 (DC Cir. 1995) (internal 
quotation marks and emphasis omitted). The RPFJ easily meets that 
forgiving standard. Indeed, as shown in detail below, this 
conclusion is easily established by measuring the RPFJ against four 
settled principles that govern relief in all antitrust cases, and by 
comparing the RPFJ to the radical remedies that have been proposed 
by the States that have refused to consent to the RPFJ 
(``Litigating States'').
    First, it is well settled that an antitrust remedy should be 
designed to protect consumers rather than advance the interests of 
competitors. The RPFJ will accomplish this goal. It prevents 
Microsoft from engaging in exclusionary or retaliatory tactics, as 
well as foreclosing a number of more specific paths to unfair 
competition. However, it is carefully crafted to ensure that Windows 
will remain available to consumers as a reliable operating platform.
    By contrast, many of the Litigating States' proposals seem to 
have been designed by Microsoft's competitors. Indeed, the companies 
that will benefit most from the Litigating States' efforts are the 
same ones that have led the campaign to scuttle settlement efforts 
case and to impose far-reaching restrictions on Microsoft: AOL Time 
Warner, Sun Microsystems, Oracle, IBM, and Apple. As a prominent 
commentator recently noted, Microsoft's enemies were largely 
responsible for instigating the lawsuit and were active behind the 
scenes in helping the government frame the charges and compile the 
evidence. Executives from Sun, AOL, Netscape and other companies 
testified against Microsoft. Fred Vogelstein, The Long Shadow of XP, 
Fortune, Nov. 12, 2001. Each of these companies dominates a 
particular market that is distinct enough from Intel- compatible PCs 
not to be a part of this case, but related enough that Microsoft's 
rivals fear Microsoft's competition. For example, Sun Microsystems 
dominates the market for server operating systems, but its market 
share is being eroded by lower-cost alternatives from Linux and 
Windows. Why Competitors Are Largely Quiet on Microsoft Settlement, 
Associated Press, Nov. 15, 2001; Peter Burrows, Face-Off, Bus. Wk., 
Nov. 19, 2001, at 104. In asking for must-carry provisions for Java, 
limits on technical integration and the use of Microsoft middleware, 
and restrictions on Microsoft's investment in intellectual property, 
Sun seeks to maintain its stranglehold over the server marketplace. 
Similarly, Oracle enjoys a privileged position in the server 
database market but it, too, is facing stiff competition from lower-
priced alternatives that are gaining increasing favor with reviewers 
and customers. As Oracle tries to move into different markets, such 
as e-mail, where consumers expect tighter integration, it will be 
unable to maintain its high prices unless Microsoft's capacity for 
product improvement is limited. Finally, Microsoft and AOL are both 
dominant companies, orbiting in separate if overlapping domains. Yet 
both companies regard themselves as being on a collision course, as 
all forms of information and entertainment, including music and 
movies, are increasingly rendered in digital form. Steve Lohr, In 
AOL's Suit Against Microsoft, the Key Word Is Access, N.Y. Times, 
Jan. 24, 2001. An internal document makes clear that AOL is willing 
to take any necessary steps to gain control of the desktop, 
including even spreading false rumors about the stability of Windows 
XP. See http://www.betanews.com/aol.html.
    4 Beyond these companies' own statements and court filings their 
views are parroted by various proxies. These include organizations 
that were specifically formed to hobble Microsoft, such as the 
misnamed Project to Promote Competition and Innovation in the 
Digital Age (``ProComp''), and existing trade 
organizations that these companies have recently joined and come to 
dominate, such as the Computer and Communications Industry 
Association (``CCIA'') and the Software Information 
Industry Assocation (``SIIA''). The apparently high level 
of coordination between these groups and the Litigating States' 
counsel is ample reason for skepticism when examining some of the 
States' arguments.
    The reality is that these rivals, both directly and through 
their proxies, are trying to use the courts to increase their own 
profits rather than consumer satisfaction. This is shown by the fact 
that, while they condemn Microsoft for integrating its products, 
they, too, are vying to bring integrated products to consumers. For 
example, Sun's SunONE initiative tries to offer the same level of 
integration as Microsoft's .Net service. See SunONE, Services on 
Demand vision, at http://www.sun.com/software/sunone/
overview/vision/. Not surprisingly, Oracle shares this vision of a 
global network of

[[Page 28125]]

centralized information and online services. It envisions an all- 
Oracle solution, advising businesses to ``wage their own war on 
complexity'' by turning to Oracle for ``an integrated, 
complete software suite.'' AOL is likewise promoting its 
``AOL anywhere'' strategy, which makes its popular 
services and features available to consumers anywhere, anytime 
through multiple platforms and mobile devices. Clearly, these 
companies do not believe that selling IT products piecemeal best 
meets consumers' needs, yet that is what they are trying to force 
Microsoft to do.
    Second, it is equally well settled that an antitrust remedy 
should be tailored to fit the conduct that has been found illegal. 
Here, the RPFJ carefully addresses each of the types of conduct that 
the Court of Appeals found illegal. It regulates the agreements that 
Microsoft can enter into and prevents Microsoft from retaliating 
against software or hardware distributors. The RPFJ also gives both 
computer manufacturers and consumers more choices in configuring 
their computers, and specifically enables them to turn off any 
Microsoft middleware and replace it with the middleware of their 
choice. And the RPFJ requires Microsoft to disclose technical 
information and license its intellectual property to those whose 
products interoperate with Windows.
    To be sure, the RPFJ in some respects goes beyond the findings 
of illegal conduct affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Unfortunate as 
that may be, it should not deter the Court from adopting the RPFJ. 
As the District Court for the District of Columbia stated in another 
context: If courts acting under the Tunney Act disapproved proposed 
consent decrees merely because they did not contain the exact relief 
which the court would have imposed after a finding of liability, 
defendants would have no incentive to consent to judgment and this 
element of compromise would be destroyed. The consent decree would 
thus as a practical matter be eliminated as an antitrust enforcement 
tool, despite Congress' directive that it be preserved.
    United States v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 552 F. Supp. 131, 
151 (D.DC 1982), aff'd sub nom. Maryland v. United States, 460 U.S. 
1001 (1983) (mem.). Nevertheless, the vast majority of the RPFJ's 
provisions respond to the findings that were affirmed by the Court 
of Appeals. Virtually all of the proposals by the Litigating States, 
by contrast, address areas wholly outside the scope of this case, 
such as Microsoft's corporate acquisitions, the Office suite of 
programs and, of all things, Microsoft's conduct of its intellectual 
property litigation. The Litigating States' proposals should be 
rejected for that reason alone.
    Third, any antitrust remedy should minimize ``collateral 
damage'' to third parties. Here, the RPFJ carefully avoids 
serious harm to other sectors of the information technology 
industry.
    The Litigating States' proposals, by contrast, would inflict 
enormous damage on the rest of the industry. Perhaps most important, 
their proposals would fragment the Windows standard and, in turn, 
profoundly disrupt other businesses that rely upon it. The 
Litigating States' proposals would also weaken intellectual property 
protections, setting an unnerving precedent for any IT firm aspiring 
to lead its market, and slow the pace of research and development in 
the IT field. Fourth, an antitrust remedy should be easy to 
administer, and not be regulatory. The Litigating States, in an 
effort to impose their concept of ``competition'' in the 
information technology industry, would create a court-run agency to 
supervise Microsoft's every move and to judge its every action. In 
contrast, the RPFJ would create a more independent, more limited 
supervisory body that would have full access to Microsoft 
information, but that would not combine the roles of prosecutor and 
judge. This too counsels strongly in favor of the RPFJ, and against 
the proposals advanced by the Litigating States.
    The remainder of these Comments is organized as follows. Section 
I summarizes and explains in more detail the four principles that 
are pertinent to the District Court's determination of whether the 
RPFJ is within the reaches of the public interest. Microsoft, 56 
F.3d at 1460 (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted). 
Section II applies these principles to the RPFJ and, for comparison 
purposes, to the proposals advanced by the Litigating States.
    I. THE PROPER ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATING ANTITRUST 
REMEDIES.
    Antitrust law recognizes that competition gets its vigor from 
the urge to win. A desire to ensure that all competitors will do 
equally well makes robust competition impossible and sets the stage 
for price-fixing and similar behavior. Accordingly, antitrust law 
and antitrust remedies are designed to foster real competition, so 
that consumers and the wider economy can ultimately benefit. Thus, 
while competitors I driven by their own urge to win I may try to 
misuse antitrust law to further their own goals, government agencies 
and courts should be vigilant to ensure that their power is used in 
consumersO interests rather than competitorsO. The case law on 
remedies generally I and antitrust remedies in particular I supports 
the goal of harnessing competition. A close reading of that case law 
reveals four specific principles that promote that goal, and that 
are dispositive here.
    A.Any Remedy Must Have A Probability Of Benefiting Consumers, 
And Not Be Designed to Punish the Defendant Or, Worse, To Enhance 
The Position Of the Defendant's Rivals.
    Perhaps the most important principle of antitrust law is that 
any remedy must be designed to benefit consumers, not just punish 
the defendant or enhance the position of the its rivals. The law is 
clear that, in a civil antitrust case, any injunctive remedy must 
be, as its name suggests, remedial rather than punitive. E.g., 
United States v. E. I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 366 U.S. 316, 
326 (1961); International Salt Co. v. United States, 332 U.S. 392, 
401 (1947); Hecht Co. v. Bowles, 321 U.S. 321, 329 (1944). Moreover, 
as Judge Robert Bork has shown in his famous book, The Antitrust 
Paradox, the entire purpose of antitrust law is promotion of 
consumer welfare, not the protection I or enhancement I of 
competitors. Robert H. Bork, The Antitrust Paradox 51, 56-;89 
(1978); see also National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Board of 
Regents, 468 U.S. 85, 107 (1984).
    It follows that any remedy must have as its principal purpose 
the promotion of consumer welfare. And, as the District Court 
recently noted, the states have the burden of establishing the 
efficacy of every element of the proposed relief in achieving that 
objective. Hearing Tr., Sept. 28, 2001, at 8, United States v. 
Microsoft, No. 98-;1232 (D.DC). For two reasons, it is doubtful 
that any remedy at all is needed to protect consumers in this case. 
First, it appears that the particular conduct at issue in this case 
has never harmed consumers in any meaningful sense. The government's 
own witness, Professor Frank Fisher of
    MIT, testified during the trial that the narrow conduct found 
unlawful by the Court of Appeals had not harmed consumers at all. 
When asked by plaintiffsO counsel whether that conduct had harmed 
consumers, Fisher replied: [O]n balance, I would think the answer 
was no, up to this point. Trial Tr., Morning of Jan. 12, 1999, at 29 
(Fisher), United States v. Microsoft Corp., 87 F.Supp.2d 30 (D.DC 
2000), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 253 F.3d 34 (DC Cir.), cert. 
denied, 122 S.Ct. 350 (2001).
    If Microsoft's conduct did not harm consumers even on balance it 
is difficult to see how any remedy is now needed to protect them. 
But if any remedy is needed, the Court must be careful not to risk 
harming consumers by adopting remedy proposals such as those 
advanced by the Litigating States remedies which, to paraphrase 
Abraham Lincoln, are of the competitors, by the competitors, and for 
the competitors.
    Second, even if Microsoft's conduct could have harmed consumers 
in some way, any such risk has now abated. This entire case is 
premised on the assertion that Microsoft enjoys market power by 
virtue of the fact that a high percentage of IBM-compatible PCs use 
Windows as their operating system. Whether or not that was true when 
the case was tried, such knowledgeable industry observers as Sun's 
president have effectively conceded that whatever market power 
Windows might once have given Microsoft is now virtually a thing of 
the past. For example, in his January 3, 1999 interview on 60 
Minutes, Scott McNealy rejected Leslie Stahl's suggestion that with 
its Java software, Sun now ha[d] a chance to make Windows obsolete. 
Instead, McNealy retorted, Windows is obsolete, [and] we have a 
chance to show the world that it is. 60 Minutes (CBS Television 
Broadcast, Jan. 3, 1999). McNealy elaborated this theme in a 
subsequent Wall Street Journal op-ed piece, which appeared more than 
two years ago. He asserted that, because of the growth of the 
Internet, [a]
    few years from now, savvy managers won't be buying many, if any, 
computers. They won't buy or build anywhere near as much software 
either. They'll just rent resources from a service provider, 
primarily over the Internet. Scott McNealy, Why We Don't Want You to 
Buy Our Software, Wall St. J., Sept. 1, 1999, at A26. McNealy's 
predictions are already being borne out. A recent article

[[Page 28126]]

assessed the changes in the operating system market. It noted that 
Microsoft's main markets are maturing and the entire ground under 
its empire is shifting. Market researchers expect PC sales worldwide 
to drop [in 2001] and at best to stagnate in 2002. What is more, 
software is increasingly a service delivered over the Internet, 
meaning that operating systems are no longer central. Microsoft: 
Extending Its Tentacles, The Economist, Oct. 20-;26, 2001, at 
59. Thus, whatever market power Microsoft now possesses is rapidly 
being eroded, or is already effectively gone. In short, because 
Microsoft's present market power is limited at best and will be 
further eroded in the near future, there is no need for antitrust 
remedies. See also William E. Kovacic, Designing Antitrust Remedies 
for Dominant Firm Misconduct, 31 Conn. L. Rev. 1285, 1314 (1999) 
(explaining that rapid technological change can indicate the 
instability of market power, and therefore to the need for milder 
remedies). At a minimum, any antitrust remedy must take into account 
the dramatic decline in any market power Microsoft might previously 
have enjoyed, and be limited accordingly.
    B. The Remedy Should Be No Broader Than Necessary To Address The 
Conduct That The Court Of Appeals Held Illegal.
    Another principle that must guide the analysis of any proposed 
antitrust remedy is that it must be no broader than necessary to 
address the conduct that has been found illegal. As with all 
injunctive relief, the substantive prerequisites for obtaining an 
equitable remedy as well as the general availability of injunctive 
relief ... depend on traditional principles of equity 
jurisdiction. Grupo Mexicano de Desarollo, S.A., Inc. v. Alliance 
Bond Fund, 527 U.S. 308, 319 (1999) (quoting 11A C. Wright, A. 
Miller, & M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure u 2941, at 31 
(2d ed. 1995)). And one of these traditional principles of equity 
jurisdiction, id., is that an injunction should be no more 
burdensome than necessary to prevent a recurring violation of the 
law. See generally Madsen v. Womens Health Center, 512 U.S. 753, 765 
& n. 3 (1994), and cases cited therein. This is as true in 
antitrust as in other areas of the law. For example, in the Lorain 
Journal case, which Robert Bork believes is the closest to this one, 
the Court noted that, [w]hile the decree should anticipate 
probabilities of the future, it is equally important that it ... not 
impose unnecessary restrictions. 342 U.S. at 156. The Court of 
Appeals recognized this principle when it instructed the District 
Court that any remedy should be tailored to fit the wrong creating 
the occasion for the remedy, Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 107, i.e., that 
it should be focused on the conduct [the court] has found to be 
unlawful and should be limited to provisions that are required to 
rectify [Microsoft's] monopoly maintenance violation, id. at 104, 
105.
    Consistent with these principles, since at least 1911 it has 
been the law in antitrust cases that ordinarily ... [an] adequate 
measure of relief would result from restraining the doing of such 
[illegal] acts in the future. Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 221 
U.S. 1, 77 (1911) (emphasis added). In other words, an injunction 
simply forbidding the specific conduct found to
    Normally, of course, a settlement is reached before a trial on 
the merits. In that situation, it is clear that a reviewing court 
cannot expand an antitrust decree to remedy perceived problems that 
lie outside the scope of the complaint. That was the thrust of the 
Court of Appeals' 1995 Microsoft decision, 56 F.3d 1448. 
Furthermore, any such action by a reviewing court would most likely 
be unconstitutional. Id. at 1459; see also Maryland v. United 
States, 460 U.S. 1001, 1006 (1983) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting). 
Here, of course, the Court of Appeals has affirmed some of the 
district court's findings of liability. Expanding the remedy to 
address issues as to which liability has not been proven let alone 
issues as to which liability has never been alleged would clearly 
exceed the District Court's power.
    be illegal is ordinarily considered sufficient. Or, as the 
District Court recently explained, the scope of any proposed remedy 
must be carefully crafted so as to ensure that the enjoin[ed] 
conduct falls within the . . . behavior which was found to be 
anticompetitive. Hearing Tr., Sept. 28, 2001, at 8.
    Some commentators have nevertheless argued that the District 
Court is obligated to terminate Microsoft's dominant market 
position, which they characterize as an illegal monopoly. Jennifer 
Bjorhus, Settlement Draws Frustration From Few Tech Giants That 
Spoke Out, San Jose Mercury News, Nov. 3, 2001, at 20A. But this 
argument rests on a misinterpretation of the pertinent case law, 
including the Court of Appeals' decision. Contrary to this argument, 
the law does not require that a remedy attempt to recreate the world 
as it might have existed absent the violation or deprive a defendant 
of the proceeds of its business. Instead, where a violation is 
found, the remedy, as the Court of Appeals pointed out, should be 
designed to unfetter' the market from the anticompetitive conduct.' 
Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 103 (quoting Ford Motor Co. v. United States, 
405 U.S. 562, 577 (1972)) (emphasis added).
    That, moreover, is why the Court of Appeals placed heavy focus 
on the requirement that, before a court can seek to undo an alleged 
monopoly, there must be a significant causal connection between the 
allegedly illegal conduct and the existence of that monopoly. The 
District Court recently echoed this same theme when it remarked that 
it intended to fashion an injunction that would avoid a recurrence 
of the violation and . . . eliminate its consequences. Hearing 
Transcript, Sept. 28, 2001, at 9 (emphasis added).
    There is a vast difference between unfettering or unshackling a 
market from prior anticompetitive behavior, and attempting to 
reconstruct the market as it might have existed absent that conduct. 
The former is a legitimate objective of an antitrust remedy; the 
latter is not.
    In the District Court's words, attempting to reconstruct the 
market as it might have been absent the conduct at issue goes well 
beyond simply eliminating the consequences of anticompetitive 
conduct. Antitrust law does not attempt to recreate or to maintain 
by detailed regulation a perfect world. Its goal is to restore 
competition, including legitimate competition by the dominant firm. 
Ford Motor Co. v. United States, 405 U.S. 562, 577-;78 (1972). 
C.The Remedy Should Avoid Or Minimize Collateral Damage To The Rest 
Of The IT Industry.
    Another traditional principle[] of equity jurisdiction,' Grupo 
Mexicano, 527 U.S. at 319, is that any relief imposed by a court 
should not inflict unnecessary harm on third parties. Atchison, 
Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Wichita Board of Trade, 412 
U.S. 800, 824 (1973) (plurality opinion); Gilbertville Trucking Co. 
v. United States, 371 U.S. 115, 130 (1962). In this case, there is a 
real risk of harm to the entire IT industry as well as consumers. As 
explained in the attached affidavit of ACT's president, Jonathan 
Zuck, (Exh. A) both consumers and IT companies derive enormous 
benefits from the existing Windows platform. For IT companies in 
general, and ACT's members in particular, that platform is unusually 
valuable and important for at least three reasons.
    1. Constant Improvement and Addition of New Features and 
Functionalities. One reason Windows is so valuable to the IT 
industry is that Microsoft has constantly improved it. For example, 
as Mr. Zuck explains, each new release of Windows contains software 
drivers for the major new printers and other peripheral devices that 
have been released since the prior version of Windows. This means 
that developers of applications such as money management software, 
graphics programs, etc., do not need to create their own drivers for 
these devices or, worse, choose from among several competing 
drivers. Affidavit N 7.
    Virtually everyone in the IT industry, moreover, has a strong 
interest in seeing this trend continue in the future. The addition 
to Windows of such new functionalities as voice recognition, for 
example, will allow software developers to add such features to 
their products at minimal cost. Those costs will increase 
dramatically and consumer benefits will be reduced if software 
developers are forced to develop their own voice recognition 
features or, worse, to port their programs to several competing 
voice-recognition programs. Id. N 8. 2.Windows' Uniformity and 
Widespread Acceptance. Uniform standards are likewise crucial to an 
efficient, rapidly evolving IT sector. As Mr. Zuck explains, 
communications and Internet standards provide the language necessary 
for many different computers to talk or network with one another, 
enabling, for example, users of the World Wide Web to locate and 
retrieve the information they seek. Operating systems perform a 
similar function, allowing hardware devices and software 
applications to communicate with a computer. Indeed, it is Windows' 
consistency that makes it so valuable.
    As the Court recognized in its Findings of Fact, Windows exposes 
a set of application programming interfaces' that lets software 
interact in a consistent way with any Intel- compatible PC. United 
States v. Microsoft Corp., 84 F. Supp. 2d 9, 12-;13 (D.DC 1999) 
(Findings of Fact). This means that the same software will run on 
all Windows-based PCs

[[Page 28127]]

and, by and large, all hardware devices can be used as well. 
Affidavit N 10. Hence, the consumer avoids the need for time-
consuming, often expensive retraining, and thus has a greater 
incentive to learn how to use the existing system. Also, the 
widespread acceptance that Windows enjoys makes it easier to ensure 
that computer products (both hardware and software) work the way 
they are supposed to, and work well with each other. Operating 
system consistency usually means that software will operate normally 
even if the type of computer changes. For example, WordPerfect will 
function as advertised on a Windows-based Dell computer or a 
Windows-based Compaq computer. Id.
    For these reasons, as Mr. Zuck explains, the cost per potential 
customer of developing a piece of software for the Windows operating 
system is significantly lower than the cost for the UNIX operating 
system. And that, of course, translates into more software and lower 
prices for consumers. Id. N 13.
    In addition, more than any other operating system, Windows has 
remained compatible with software written for older Windows 
versions. As a result, consumers have much greater confidence that 
the software they purchase will work when they upgrade to a new 
Windows release. Hardware manufacturers and developers similarly 
face much less risk that their research and development expenditures 
will be stranded if Microsoft releases a new version. Id. N 14.
    3. Windows' Low Cost to Consumers. The Windows operating system 
also allows the developer, or other providers of support services, 
to support end-users at minimal cost. As Mr. Zuck explains, each 
operating system not only has signature application interfaces and 
user commands, it also presents its own set of bugs and system 
errors. Thus, to provide software or
    In its consistency from one computer and software program to 
another, Windows is markedly different from the UNIX operating 
system. That system is in reality a collection of similar operating 
systems, including Sun's Solaris, Digital's UNIX, HP's HP-UX, IBM's 
AIX and SCO's UnixWare. See http://www.techweb.com/encyclopedia/ 
defineterm?term=unix. Although different versions may be desirable 
with respect to many products, for most computer users such a 
proliferation promises nothing but confusion, lost time, fewer 
applications, and higher prices. For example, a consumer who shifts 
from one UNIX-based computer to another UNIX- based computer may 
find that the two computers use different UNIX versions with 
different features, functions, and idiosyncrasies. Consequently, the 
consumer may have to devote considerable time and expense learning 
how to perform the same tasks on the second UNIX- based computer 
that she already knew how to perform on the first platform. Worse 
still, the software applications or hardware equipment she purchased 
for and used on the first computer may be incompatible with the 
version of UNIX installed on the second computer. And a UNIX user 
obviously has less incentive to develop skills tailored to her 
particular system if it is likely that she will use a different UNIX 
operating system in the future. Affidavit NN 11-;12.
    15 hardware support, a developer must train personnel to 
identify and understand the idiosyncrasies of each operating system 
under which it markets its product. These increased support costs 
increase prices and decrease consumer demand for products and 
services. Id. N 15. Consumers, moreover, obtain all of these 
benefits inexpensively. Compared to the cost of a typical PC, and to 
the cost of the software typically installed on that PC, the cost of 
Windows (at about 5% of the PC's price) is relatively small. A low 
price, coupled with all the benefits stemming from Windows' 
widespread use, drives up demand by making computer products more 
affordable and attractive to consumers. Id. N 16.
    As Mr. Zuck explains, the widespread use of an inexpensive, 
constantly evolving operating system is particularly important in an 
industry as dynamic as the information technology industry, which 
constantly generates both new products and new uses for those 
products, and for which new developments such as the Internet can 
redraw the competitive landscape overnight. A popular operating 
system like Windows allows consumers and developers to act quickly 
and with confidence that software and hardware will work on most PCs 
today and in the future. And the fact that many consumers choose 
Windows adds a measure of stability to a highly dynamic industry.
    For all these reasons, any remedy that resulted in the 
balkanization of Windows would have a disastrous effect on the 
entire IT industry. Software developers, Internet access providers, 
and others rely on the widely installed, constantly improving 
Windows platform as the groundwork for their own products. If there 
were no consistent platform, software developers would have to try 
to port their products to various operating systems, increasing 
those products' costs substantially, or else they would have to 
accept a much smaller market share.
    This, too, would drive up prices because the cost of 
distributing software is tiny compared to the cost of developing it.
    Windows' importance as a consistent platform is illustrated by 
the fact that, when it appeared that Microsoft might be broken up, 
stock prices in the rest of the IT industry fell. Kenneth G. 
Elzinga, David S. Evans, Albert L. Nichols, United States v. 
Microsoft: Remedy or Malady?, 9 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 633 (2001). 
Likewise, any remedy such as those proposed by the Litigating States 
that would fragment Windows would be unlawful because of the harm it 
would impose on third parties.
    D. The Remedy Should Be Judicially Administrable, Not 
Regulatory.
    Finally, any remedy should be judicially administrable and not 
put the courts in the position of having to oversee product design. 
United States v. Microsoft Corp., 147 F.3d 935, 948 (DC Cir. 1998). 
Some have suggested that the kinds of extreme remedies proposed by 
the Litigating States are in some sense alternatives to regulation. 
But history suggests quite the opposite.
    In 1982, for example, AT&T entered into a consent decree 
designed to remedy what the government perceived as anticompetitive 
practices, and to allow AT&T to compete in new markets. Then 
too, the provisions of that decree were touted as an alternative to 
regulation. But in practice, the break-up of AT&T generated 
pervasive judicial participation in the telecommunications industry. 
For example, between 1984 and 1995, the court ruled on over 250 
waiver requests pursuant to the consent decree. Most of these were 
necessary to allow the companies spun off from AT&T to respond 
to market developments that had not been anticipated when the decree 
was entered. Although 96 % of the requests were eventually approved, 
the average delay prior to approval was four years. It is not 
surprising, then, that Congress put the court out of the 
telecommunications business when it passed the Telecommunications 
Act of 1996.
    This kind of intrusive, time-consuming regulation is 
particularly ill-suited to a rapidly- changing industry such as IT. 
For example, many settlement opponents have made proposals resting 
on a distinction between middleware and the operating system. But 
this distinction is dubious even now, and is rapidly being eroded. 
The federal courts are not equipped to draw lines in the shifting 
sands of information technology.
    Notwithstanding this reality, some settlement opponents have 
proposed ongoing regulation of Microsoft's conduct, or detailed 
enforcement provisions envisioning ongoing judicial involvement in 
Microsoft's management. Some have even proposed egregious private 
attorney general provisions that would simply foment litigation and 
enrich plaintiff's lawyers. All of these proposals would create the 
kinds of problems that arose in abundance in the wake of the 
AT&T consent decree.
    Other cases demonstrate the dire consequences that can arise 
when courts attempt to regulate an industry under the guise of an 
antitrust decree. For example, in United States v. United Shoe 
Machinery Corp., 110 F. Supp. 295 (D. Mass. 1953), aff'd, 347 U.S. 
521 (1954), the district court imposed extensive regulation on the 
shoe machinery industry over a ten-year period. The remedies were 
meant to end United's practice of distributing shoe machinery 
through long-term leases and to make shoe machinery available from a 
variety of sellers. To this end, the court restricted lease terms, 
required United to offer its machines for sale in addition to 
leasing them, and required United to charge separately for services 
such as repairs. Id. at 352-;53. However, a 1993 study 
concluded that the court order destroyed many efficiencies arising 
out of the technical realities of the shoe manufacturing industry, 
impaired the quality of United's performance, and likely contributed 
to the dramatic decline of the domestic shoe industry in the 1960s 
and beyond. Scott E. Masten & Edward A. Snyder, United States v. 
United Shoe Machinery Corp.: On the Merits, 36 J.L. & Econ. 33 
(1993); see also Lino A. Graglia, Is Antitrust Obsolete?, 23 Harv. 
J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 11, 17 (1999). For all these reasons, judicial 
regulation of the IT industry, or any portion of that industry, is 
to be avoided at all costs.
    Indeed, that appears to be the main message of the DC Circuit's 
earlier decision

[[Page 28128]]

rejecting the preliminary injunction that the Government sought. 
Microsoft, 147 F.3d at 948 (Antitrust scholars have long recognized 
the undesirability of having courts oversee product design, and any 
dampening of technological innovation would be at cross-purposes 
with antitrust law.). And the Court of Appeals' most recent decision 
is entirely consistent with that message. Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 
101-;07. Indeed, even Judge Jackson has acknowledged that in 
this case, as in others: The less supervision by this court, the 
better.' John R. Wilke, For Antitrust Judge, Trust, or Lack of It, 
Really Was the Issue, Wall St. J., June 8, 2000, at A1.
    II. THE RPFJ IS CONSISTENT WITH ALL OF THESE PRINCIPLES, WHEREAS 
THE PROPOSALS BY THE LITIGATING STATES AND OTHER CRITICS WOULD 
VIOLATE EVERY ONE OF THEM.
    On balance, the RPFJ complies with these four principles and is 
therefore in the public interest. Like most settlements, it is less 
than perfect. However, the purpose of this proceeding is not to 
produce a perfect order. The court must review the settlement that 
the parties have agreed to, and enter it so long as the proposal 
falls within the reaches of the public interest.' Microsoft, 56 F.3d 
at 1458 (DC Cir. 1995) (emphasis in original; citations omitted); 
see 15 U.S.C. u 16(e) (Before entering any consent judgment proposed 
by the United States under this section, the court shall determine 
that the entry of such judgment is in the public interest.).
    It is clear that entry of the RPFJ is in the public interest. 
The federal government has explained at length in its Competitive 
Impact Statement that the RPFJ will provide a prompt, certain and 
effective remedy for consumers by enjoining the conduct that the 
Court of Appeals found to be illegal, and by restoring competitive 
market conditions. Competitive Impact Statement at 2, United States 
v. Microsoft, No. 98-;1232 (D.DC Nov. 15, 2001) (CIS). Each of 
the Court of Appeals' findings of anticompetitive conduct is 
addressed by at least one provision of the proposed final judgment. 
See Exh. B (table showing which provisions address each finding of 
illegality). Indeed, the RPFJ's provisions regarding server 
protocols, and its enforcement provisions, extend beyond the 
anticompetitive conduct found by the Court of Appeals. Accordingly, 
any notion that the RPFJ only tells Microsoft to go forth and sin no 
more, United States v. Microsoft Corp., 159 F.R.D. 318, 334 (D.DC 
1995), rev'd, 56 F.3d 1448 (DC Cir. 1995), is ludicrous.
    In contrast, the Litigating States and other critics of the RPFJ 
have proposed a variety of radical remedies that they claim would be 
more effective than the RPFJ in restoring competition. However, 
these proposals violate the four principles described above, and are 
in fact designed to benefit Microsoft's competitors. Indeed, these 
proposals would advantage Microsoft's competitors in areas other 
than PC operating systems, which is the only market at issue in this 
case. Moreover, rather than seeking to restore competition, these 
proposals and others like them seek to impose a court-designed, 
court-regulated regime that is especially inappropriate for a 
rapidly changing area such as IT. A principle-by-principle analysis 
highlights the flaws in these proposals.
    A. The RPFJ Is Designed To Benefit Consumers, Whereas The 
Litigating States' Proposals Are Designed To Benefit Microsoft's 
Competitors.
    As noted above, the most vital principle in designing an 
antitrust remedy is that it must be designed to benefit consumers 
rather than competitors. Unlike the Litigating States' proposals, 
the RPFJ easily complies. Consumers will benefit from the guaranteed 
flexibility and choice provisions in the RPFJ. All new Microsoft 
operating systems, including Windows XP, will have to allow end 
users to readily remove or re-enable Microsoft's middleware products 
such as its Internet browser, instant messaging tools, media player, 
and email utilities. While end users can already remove Microsoft 
middleware from Windows XP, the RPFJ will make it easier for users 
to switch and compare among competing middleware products, including 
those installed by computer manufacturers and those readily 
accessible over the Internet. Most importantly, the RPFJ preserves 
the integrity of the Windows standard while making it easier for 
other platforms to compete with Windows. As discussed above, the 
network effects that characterize the operating system market mean 
that consumers and the IT industry both benefit when they know that 
the platform they rely on is widely used, and will continue to be 
widely used in the future. Findings of Fact at 19-;23; see also 
Affidavit NN 9-;14. By and large, the RPFJ avoids requirements 
that would encourage the emergence and sale of multiple, 
incompatible operating systems under the Windows brand name. At the 
same time, the RPFJ protects Microsoft's competitors in several 
ways. Most importantly, it forbids retaliation against OEMs, u 
III.A, requires uniform license terms for the twenty largest OEMs, u 
III.B, and prevents Microsoft from including various restrictive 
provisions in OEM licenses, u III.C. Thus the RPFJ opens up the 
valuable OEM distribution channel to competitors, addressing the 
Court of Appeals' most substantial concerns. By increasing 
competitors' access to OEMs and by preventing Microsoft from 
negotiating quotas with IAPs, the RPFJ reasonably ensures that 
consumers will have access to whatever products they want.
    By contrast, a central thrust of the Litigating States' 
proposals is to break Microsoft's control over the Windows brand. 
Forcing Microsoft to break up Windows into what a court conceives of 
as its component parts both destroys the utility of the standard 
Windows platform and entangles judges in a maze of technical 
regulation that they are poorly equipped to solve. If implemented, 
the LSPFJ would result in the creation of as many as 4,000 different 
versions of Windows, each requiring support not only by Microsoft 
but also by OEMs, software developers, and other IT professionals. 
This outcome would worsen, not improve, the lot of consumers. It 
would only serve to weaken Microsoft's product offerings, confuse 
users, drive up prices, and limit software choices.
    Such remedies would also create concerns about privacy and 
security. Consumers are concerned and rightly so about on-line 
privacy and the security of their electronic information. E.g. David 
Ho, Identity Theft Tops Fraud Complaints, Wash. Post, Jan. 24, 2002 
at E4. Because Microsoft would have almost no control over access to 
its code and to its technical information under the states' plan, 
hackers and other unsavory characters would find it much easier to 
penetrate the most common privacy and security protections. It would 
also be harder for Microsoft to control computer piracy, which in 
the end drives up prices to consumers. By making the fruits of 
Microsoft's innovations readily available to competitors, the 
Litigating States' proposals would also harm consumers by reducing 
Microsoft's incentive to innovate in the future. Indeed, it is 
likely that Microsoft's research and development budget, which has 
historically been the largest in the industry, would be 
substantially reduced to the 22 detriment of consumers. Property 
ownership is the cornerstone of a free market system; as property 
rights are eroded, so is the incentive to put that property to its 
most valuable use. Beyond these problems, the Litigating States' 
proposals are patently designed to provide specific benefits to 
Microsoft's principal competitors, and to reinforce their dominant 
positions in markets that are irrelevant to this litigation. This 
approach to remedies is contrary to the interests of consumers and 
the rest of the IT industry, and contrary to antitrust law. Benefits 
to AOL Time Warner. Some of the Litigating States' proposals will 
directly benefit AOL Time Warner. For example, the Litigating 
States' proposal to break Microsoft's control over the Windows 
brand, and the proposed prohibition on making Microsoft middleware 
the default for any functionality, LSPFJ u 10, unless the OEM or 
other licensee can override the setting and designate a different 
default or give the end-user a neutrally presented choice means that 
consumers who think they are buying a coherent, integrated operating 
system designed by Microsoft will get something quite different.
    To see how this benefits AOL, consider the following scenario: 
AOL's Magic Carpet service will compete with Microsoft's .Net 
services. If Microsoft designates .Net as a default service in 
Windows, AOL can ask computer sellers to re-direct the default to 
Magic Carpet. Indeed, AOL's strategy is to do just that. Alec Klein, 
AOL to Offer Bounty for Space on New PCs, Wash. Post, July 26, 2001, 
at A1 (In internal AOL documents, the media giant lays out a 
strategy that calls on manufacturers to build into their new 
personal computers icons, pop-up notices and other consumer messages 
aimed at pushing aside Microsoft by giving AOL's own products 
prominent placement on PCs. It's the latest foray in an intensifying 
feud between the two technology titans over consumers and supremacy 
on the Internet.) Yet this hybrid product will still be marketed as 
a Windows system, making Microsoft responsible in consumers' eyes 
for programs it has no control over, and giving AOL a free ride on 
Microsoft's reputation and marketing.
    Other users will be provided with a bewildering array of 
choices, all presented in a neutral manner, i.e. without guidance as 
to what product best suits their needs. Yet sophisticated users who 
have information

[[Page 28129]]

about middleware alternatives do not need neutrally presented 
choices to help them make their decisions. Less sophisticated 
consumers are entitled to get the brand they paid for, or at least 
to be told how to get that brand. The RPFJ's Section III, by 
contrast, puts Microsoft and its competitors on a level playing 
field, with minimal judicial intervention.
    Benefits to Sun Microsystems. Another Microsoft rival, Sun, 
would also benefit directly from the Litigating States' proposals. 
Sun would benefit most obviously from the proposal that Microsoft 
include Sun's Java with every copy of Windows. LSPFJ u 13. 
Apparently Sun sees no conflict between that proposal and the 
proposal that Microsoft make available middleware- free versions of 
Windows at reduced prices. It is hard to argue that this requirement 
would benefit consumers, who can already get Sun's Java free from 
those web sites that use it. The federal government's settlement 
with Microsoft will make Sun's Java even easier for consumers to 
obtain by allowing OEMs, IAPs, and ISVs to provide it to their 
customers without fear of retaliation. But under the Litigating 
States' proposal, all consumers would have Sun's Java forced on 
them.
    Benefits to IBM and Apple. The Litigating States' proposals also 
benefit IBM and Apple, giving them each an Office suite. IBM wants 
Office for Linux, and under the Litigating States' proposal it will 
get its wish by snatching Microsoft Office source code at the 
auction price. Under that proposal, Microsoft must maintain and 
support Office for the Macintosh even if it is a money-losing 
proposition. And if Apple is unhappy with the Office support 
Microsoft has to provide, it can snatch the source code at auction, 
and have an Office all its own. LSPFJ u 14. These porting proposals 
go far beyond the scope of this case, which is the Windows operating 
system market.
    Conversely, the federal government's settlement with Microsoft 
addresses the Court of Appeals' only holding of anticompetitive 
behavior involving Apple, namely the agreement that Apple would 
distribute Internet Explorer exclusively. Under the RPFJ, Apple, 
like all ISVs, is free to distribute and promote non-Microsoft 
platform software without fear of retaliation. The states' proposal 
would give a free ride to a handful of companies and would impose an 
unnecessary burden on Microsoft but would not benefit consumers.
    The states' proposals also provide free source code for 
Microsoft's Internet Explorer, LSPFJ u 12, giving IBM a good browser 
for the entire line of IBM computers and Apple a leg up on its 
software design. But once again, the problem with all this 
generosity is that its sole purpose is to benefit competitors and 
harm Microsoft, not to benefit consumers.
    B. The RPFJ Is Narrowly Tailored To The Court Of Appeals' 
Ruling, Whereas The Litigating States' Proposals Go Well Beyond It.
    Another key flaw in the Litigating States' proposals is that 
they go well beyond the Court of Appeals' ruling. Indeed, the 
sweeping scope of the Litigating States' proposals suggests that 
they mistakenly read the Court of Appeals' decision on liability as 
a broad affirmance, rather than as it was in fact a reversal in part 
containing very precise, narrow holdings on liability. Indeed, the 
DC Circuit reversed the District Court's findings that Microsoft had 
committed attempted monopolization and illegal tying.
    As to the remaining findings, the Court of Appeals affirmed only 
some of the District Court's findings that Microsoft had illegally 
maintained its monopoly. Microsoft, 253 F.3d 34.
    The Court of Appeals held that some exclusionary contracts and 
negotiating tactics were unlawful; that Microsoft had acted 
illegally in deceiving developers about its own Java language; and 
that Microsoft had illegally excluded Internet Explorer from its 
Add/ Remove facility and intermingled its Internet Explorer and 
operating system code. The Court also emphasized that, on remand, 
the District Court must base its relief on some clear indication of 
a significant causal connection between the conduct enjoined or 
mandated and the violation found directed toward the remedial goal 
intended.' Id. at 105 (quoting 3 Philip E. Areeda & Herbert 
Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law N 653(b), at 91-;92 (1996)).
    Section III of the RPFJ addresses each of these holdings. As to 
exclusionary contracts and high-pressure negotiations, the RPFJ 
forbids Microsoft to retaliate against OEMs, u III.A; requires 
Microsoft to sell Windows to the twenty largest OEMs under uniform 
license terms, u III.B; and forbids retaliation against, or 
exclusionary agreements with, ISVs or IHVs, u III.G, u III.F. As to 
Java, the RPFJ requires disclosure of information needed to design 
other software to be fully compatible with Windows, u III.D, and 
requires Microsoft to license its intellectual property to rivals, u 
III.I. As to Internet Explorer, the RFPJ forbids Microsoft to 
restrict any OEM from modifying their computer interfaces in various 
ways, such as removing the Internet Explorer icon, u III.C, and 
requires Microsoft to allow end-users to remove access to Microsoft 
Middleware or to designate a non-Microsoft middleware product as the 
default instead of the Microsoft product, u III.H.
    The Court of Appeals was also quick to note that much of the 
conduct that Microsoft was accused of and even conduct that was 
found to be anticompetitive in particular settings is common in 
business, and is usually not anticompetitive. But the states' 
proposed categorical bans sweep in a host of pro-competitive 
conduct, in disregard of the Court of Appeals' instruction that any 
remedy be narrowly tailored to specific holdings of illegality. For 
example, the states would ban exclusive dealing across the board. 
Yet the Court of Appeals explained that: ``exclusive contracts 
are commonplace especially in the field of distribution in our 
competitive, market economy, and imposing upon a firm with market 
power the risk of an antitrust suit every time it enters into such a 
contract, no matter how small the effect, would create an 
unacceptable and unjustified burden upon any such firm.'' 
Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 70.
    Similarly, the proposed judgment reflects an implacable 
hostility to integrating an internet browser or any additional 
functionality with the basic Windows operating system. Yet, as the 
Court of Appeals observed, [a]s a general rule, courts are properly 
very skeptical about claims that competition has been harmed by a 
dominant firm's product design changes. Id. at 65.
    In perhaps the Litigating States' most egregious proposal, Sun 
CEO Scott McNealy got a special gift he has always wanted, see Peter 
Burrows, Face-Off, Bus. Wk., Nov. 19, 2001, at 104, --; the 
ability to stop Microsoft from buying anything that could help it 
compete with Sun. If Microsoft wants to make an acquisition, an 
investment, or an exclusive license, it must notify the plaintiff 
states' attorneys two months in advance. LSPFJ u 20. The states make 
this proposal despite the total absence of any takeover-related 
findings anywhere in this case. It was precisely this type of 
overreaching that the Court of Appeals soundly rejected in 1995, 
when it reversed Judge Sporkin's refusal to approve the federal 
government's settlement with Microsoft and reassigned the case to a 
different district judge. Microsoft, 56 F.3d 1448. Judge Sporkin had 
gone beyond the complaint to try to force the parties to address his 
own concerns about vaporware. The Court of Appeals found that effort 
inappropriate. And it is no more appropriate for the Litigating 
States, at this late date, to try to drag in new issues and punish 
Microsoft for conduct that it never had a chance to defend. If a 
claim is not made, a remedy directed to that claim is hardly 
appropriate. Id. at 1460.
    Another example of overreaching is buried in the Litigating 
States' proposals regarding orders and sanctions, and which singles 
out for punishment any groundless claim Microsoft makes of 
intellectual property infringement. Again, Microsoft's conduct in 
intellectual property litigation is no part of this case.
    Finally, the Litigating States' proposed ban on retaliation 
against those who participated in the litigation is not grounded in 
any finding of illegality, even though Microsoft has been enmeshed 
in antitrust cases for years and has presumably had ample 
opportunity to retaliate unhindered. The RPFJ retaliation ban, in 
contrast, is clearly aimed at the possibility that Microsoft might 
try to punish companies that do not cooperate with Microsoft's 
business goals. The Court of Appeals envisioned that Microsoft would 
continue its normal business relations, albeit with injunctions in 
place against specific conduct found to be anticompetitive. The RPFJ 
provision implements that vision, while the states' proposal would 
open the door to unfounded claims of retaliation by any disgruntled 
participant in the litigation.
    Of course, the RPFJ itself is overbroad in some respects.
    Yet despite these problems with its scope, it is clear that as a 
whole, the RPFJ falls within the reaches of the public
    For example, the Proposed Final Judgment defines Microsoft 
middleware as including Outlook Express, photo and video editing 
software, and other products that cannot serve as competitive 
threats to Microsoft. RPFJ u VI.K.1. This definition clearly

[[Page 28130]]

overreaches. This case is about Microsoft's response to the 
emergence of middleware as a competitive threat a possible 
alternative platform for software developers that could run on a 
variety of operating systems and thus would make software 
independent of Windows. Only middleware that can interest. It 
addresses the Court of Appeals' findings of illegality, remedies 
them all, and ensures competitive conditions in the market for 
Intel-compatible PC operating systems. C.The RPFJ Will Benefit The 
IT Industry, Whereas The Litigating States' Proposals Would Impose 
Substantial Harm On Other IT Companies. The RPFJ also offers 
significant advantages to the IT industry. Most importantly, of 
course, it preserves the integrity of Windows. But it also serves 
the IT industry by achieving a relatively quick resolution of this 
dispute. Litigation over remedies, possibly followed by appeal and 
remand or further appeal, could take years. The Supreme Court has 
recognized that a government antitrust consent decree is a contract 
between the parties to settle their disputes and differences, United 
States v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 420 U.S. 223, 235-;38 
(1975); United States v. Armour & Co., 402 U.S. 673, 
681-;82 (1971), and normally embodies a compromise; in exchange 
for the saving of cost and elimination of risk, the parties each 
give up something they might have won had they proceeded with the 
litigation. Armour, 402 U.S. at 681. The RPFJ has the virtue of 
bringing the IT industry certain benefits and protections without 
the uncertainty and expense of protracted litigation, Armour, 402 
U.S. at 681; Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1459; it will provide prompt, 
certain and effective remedies, CIS at 3.
    The RPFJ also directly helps OEMs and other IT firms. Many of 
the options that will benefit consumers will also benefit the 
companies they buy from. As discussed above, OEMs serve as an 
independent basis for software development across different 
operating systems poses a competitive threat to Windows. Microsoft, 
253 F.3d at 53. Similarly, the RPFJ overreaches when it requires 
that Microsoft disclose communications protocols used to 
interoperate with Windows 2000 servers and their successors. The 
Court of Appeals' definition of the relevant market made it clear 
that servers are not a part of that market and therefore, that they 
are not a part of this case. Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 52-;53. As 
explained above, the only connection between servers and this case 
is that Microsoft's competitors in the server market have been 
highly influential with the Attorneys General who continue to 
litigate this case. The server protocols themselves are irrelevant 
and thus compelling disclosure is both overbroad and designed to 
benefit competitors rather than consumers.
    29 that equip their products with any Microsoft operating system 
will benefit from guaranteed flexibility under the RPFJ. The twenty 
largest OEMs will also be entitled to uniform licensing terms, with 
some flexibility for volume discounts and marketing allowances. OEMs 
will have the ability to lease desktop space as well as space in the 
boot sequence on their computers by installing or promoting non-
Microsoft products and services; IT companies will thus have the 
option to negotiate with the OEM(s) of their choice for that space. 
By contrast, the states' proposal to give the OEMs the choice of 
which parts of Windows to include on their computers and forcing 
Microsoft to accommodate those choices would fragment the Windows 
standard. As explained above and in Mr. Zuck's affidavit, such 
fragmentation would have disastrous effects. Creating multiple 
versions of Windows would slow the release of new versions of 
Windows and would make it impossible for software developers to 
program with confidence. Either they would write only to the leanest 
version available, depriving consumers of the benefits of most of 
Windows' functionality, or they would have to write multiple 
versions of each program, substantially increasing development costs 
and customer confusion. A stagnant, fragmented Windows would hurt 
the entire industry.
    On another front, the RPFJ benefits all IT providers, including 
Microsoft's competitors, by guaranteeing access to technical 
specifications. Microsoft would have to promptly disclose technical 
information that enables any Windows operating system to communicate 
with Microsoft servers and with all Microsoft middleware products. 
uu III.D, III.E. To encourage more non-Microsoft middleware, the 
settlement forces Microsoft to license any intellectual property 
rights that others might need to compete with Microsoft. u III.I. 
And as with OEMs, Microsoft could not penalize any software 
developer, service provider, or hardware vendor that develops or 
sells products that compete with Windows and Microsoft middleware. 
uu III.A, III.F.
    By contrast, as discussed above, the Litigating States' 
proposals would stifle innovation further by weakening or entirely 
eliminating Microsoft's intellectual property rights, thereby 
reducing its incentive to innovate. E.g. LSPFJ uu 1 (stripping down 
Windows), 2(a) (mandatory licenses), 3 (mandatory licensing of 
predecessor versions), 4 (disclosure of APIs and technical 
information), 12 (giving away browser), 14 (mandatory porting), 15 
(intellectual property licenses), 19(f) (intellectual property 
claims). These provisions would not only hurt Windows, but also 
would instill in any sensible IT executive the fear that success 
will lead to confiscation. Even if these proposals did not end 
Microsoft's improvements to Windows, another provision would likely 
do so. That is the Litigating States' proposal to require Microsoft 
to notify any ISV of non-Microsoft middleware of any planned action, 
sixty days in advance, if the action will interfere with the 
middleware's performance or compatibility with Windows, unless the 
action is taken for good cause. LSPFJ u 5. After the notification, 
the ISV could complain to Microsoft's court-installed regulators to 
try to block the change.
    The states' broad prohibitions on exclusive dealing and on 
agreements limiting competition also would prohibit Microsoft from 
entering into joint ventures with any other members of the IT 
industry. Because IT products are so interdependent, both consumers 
and companies would suffer if the only option is to design around 
Microsoft products, and the option of collaborating with Microsoft 
on entirely new projects is excluded.
    D. The RPFJ Attempts to Structure a Workable Compromise, Whereas 
the Litigating States Propose to Establish a Court-Run Ministry of 
Microsoft. Finally, the approach of the RPFJ is not unduly 
regulatory. To be sure, the enforcement mechanism is too intrusive 
and could be substantially improved. However, the substantive 
provisions of the RPFJ focus on improving competition rather than 
micromanaging markets or product design. Thus, most of the 
injunctions tell Microsoft what not to do, rather than imagining 
what a perfect competitor might do and then attempting to enforce 
that vision. Not so the proposal by the Litigating States. They have 
proposed ongoing regulation of Microsoft's conduct, including 
ongoing judicial involvement in Microsoft's management, by a special 
master who would serve as an investigator, prosecutor, judge, and 
potentially even witness against Microsoft. LSPFJ u 18. The special 
master would be free to receive and act on even anonymous 
complaints, again a procedure that the Court of Appeals harshly 
criticized when Judge Sporkin used it. Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1464. 
These proposals are most likely unlawful, if not unconstitutional. 
Id.; Microsoft, 147 F.3d. at 954 (granting mandamus to vacate non- 
consensual reference to a special master where [t]he issue here is 
interpretation, not compliance; the parties' rights must be 
determined, not merely enforced). And in all events, they would 
allow Microsoft's rivals to thwart competition at every turn.
    The Litigating States also err in proposing an unduly long 
duration period. Any remedy in this case must be sensitive to the 
rapid pace of technological change in the operating system market. 
An injunction that is appropriate today may be completely unsuited 
to tomorrow's market. If, as The Economist has written, operating 
systems are no longer central, then there is little point in 
regulating that market. Microsoft: Extending its Tentacles, The 
Economist, Oct. 20-;26, 2001, at 59. The RPFJ recognizes this 
reality by limiting its term to five years, with the possibility of 
a two-year extension. u V. Not so the Litigating States, who in 
their rush to ask for the most punitive remedies available seek a 
ten-year term for the judgment. In an effort to cover unforeseeable 
eventualities, the States also define key terms such as middleware, 
browser, and technical information so broadly that the proposed 
judgment is in some ways absurd. For example, it appears that the 
middleware definition would include parts of Windows 3.0, which was 
developed before anyone thought of Java or Internet Explorer. 
Because they are unworkable, many of the Litigating States' 
proposals invite additional judicial involvement through complaints 
by competitors or others; indeed, the provisions for anonymous 
complaints invite not only involvement, but abuse.
    In short, the Litigating States' proposals pose an enormous risk 
of ongoing judicial regulation. Not only would they require

[[Page 28131]]

substantial modification of Microsoft's internal management 
structure, but they would require the District Court to set up its 
own regulatory agency, headed by the special master and potentially 
including a substantial staff, all paid by Microsoft. Courts are 
simply not designed for this sort of ongoing regulatory role, 
particularly in a field as far removed from their expertise as IT. 
At best, the Litigating States' proposals would create a 
contentious, judicially-regulated regime in place of a market. At 
worst, they would seriously impair IT innovation, at everyone's 
expense.
    CONCLUSION
    For all these reasons, the RPFJ should be adopted, and the 
Litigating States' proposals should be rejected.
    Gene C. Schaerr, DC Bar No. 416368
    Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP
    1501 K Street, NW
    Washington, DC 20005
    (202) 736-;8141
    (202) 736-;8711 (fax)
    Counsel for the Association for
    Competitive Technology
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 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.
    DECLARATION OF JONATHAN ZUCK
    January 25, 2002
    Qualifications and Scope of Testimony
    1. My name is Jonathan Zuck. I am over 18 years of age. I reside 
at 3701 Upton Street NW, in Washington, DC. I am President and 
Executive Director of the Association for Competitive Technology 
(ACT). I make this declaration in my capacity as President of ACT, 
which declaration is based on my personal knowledge of the facts set 
forth herein. To my knowledge, the factual assertions presented in 
this affidavit are true and correct.
    2. ACT is a nonprofit association representing over 9,000 
companies and individuals in the information technology (IT) 
industry. ACT members include independent software developers, 
hardware developers, systems integrators and on-line companies, many 
of whom are small and medium-sized businesses who depend on 
Microsoft technology for their success. Protecting the freedom to 
achieve, compete and innovate, ACT is dedicated to preserving the 
role of technology companies in shaping the future of the IT 
industry. Although their businesses vary, ACT members share a 
preference for market-driven solutions over regulated ones. Through 
education, advocacy and collaboration, ACT gives the IT industry a 
powerful voice in shaping its future. Although Microsoft is also an 
ACT member, ACT's interest in the remedies phase of this case stems 
primarily from the serious adverse impact the remedies proposed by 
the Litigating States will have on ACT's other members, and 
especially on independent software vendors (ISVs) in the business of 
developing applications software for use by business and consumers.
    3. I became President of ACT in 1998. Since assuming leadership 
of ACT, I have been responsible for providing analysis, commentary 
and background information on behalf of the IT industry on a broad 
range of technology issues being debated in the public policy arena. 
I have appeared on a wide variety of television and radio programs, 
and do a large amount of writing for trade publications such as PC 
Magazine, PC Week, DBMS, the Visual Basic Programmer's Journal, and 
Windows Tech Journal. I have coauthored several books on the subject 
of Windows application development, including Visual Basic How-To. I 
also regularly speak at trade conferences in the United States and 
around the world on matters important to ACT's membership.
    4. Prior to becoming President of ACT, I spent more than 15 
years as a professional software developer. Most recently, I served 
as Director of Technical Services at the Spectrum Technology Group 
in Washington, DC, a consulting firm specializing in client/server, 
Internet and data warehouse solutions. Prior to that, in 1988, I 
founded and served as President of User Friendly, Inc., of 
Washington, DC, a company providing consulting and software 
development services to local businesses. The company expanded into 
commercial software development with Crescent Software in 1992. I 
also set up U.S. operations for Matesys, a French software firm that 
produced client/server development tools including ObjectView. At 
Matesys, I was responsible for product management, marketing and 
sales, and helped build the company into an $11 million business 
before it was sold to Knowledgeware.
    5. The purpose of ACT's Tunney Act comments, and of my 
Declaration, is to provide the Court with the IT industry's 
perspective on the Revised Proposed Final Judgment (RPFJ) as well as 
the industry's perspective on more radical proposals that have been 
advanced by various groups, including the Litigating States. 
Specifically, this Declaration seeks to explain the importance of 
the standard, constantly evolving Windows platform and the heavy 
costs that would be imposed by the Litigating States' proposals or 
any other proposals that impair Windows' integrity. For the reasons 
explained below, ACT believes that the Litigating States' proposed 
remedies could well be devastating to the IT industry, with no 
corresponding benefit. In contrast, the RPFJ will likely preserve 
and even strengthen the IT industry.
    Value of Windows
    6. In various ways, the Litigating States' proposals will 
threaten the three features of the Windows operating system that 
make it so valuable to the IT industry: (1) the fact that Microsoft 
constantly improves it by adding new features and functionalities; 
(2) its uniformity and widespread acceptance; and (3) its low cost 
to consumers.
    7. Constant Improvement and Addition of New Features and 
Functionalities. One reason Windows is so valuable to the IT 
industry is that Microsoft has constantly improved it. For example, 
each new release of Windows contains software drivers for the major 
new printers and other peripheral devices that have been released 
since the prior version of Windows. This means that developers of 
applications such as money management software, graphics programs, 
etc., do not need to create their own drivers for these devices or, 
worse, choose from among several competing drivers.
    8. Virtually everyone in the IT industry, moreover, has a strong 
interest in seeing this trend continue in the future. The addition 
to Windows of such new functionalities as voice recognition, for 
example, will allow software developers to add such features to 
their products at minimal cost. Those costs will increase 
dramatically and consumer benefits will be reduced if software 
developers are forced to develop their own voice recognition 
features or, worse, to port their programs to several competing 
voice-recognition programs.
    9. Windows' Uniformity and Widespread Acceptance. Uniform 
standards are crucial to an efficient, rapidly evolving IT sector. 
Communications and Internet standards provide the language necessary 
for many different computers to talk or network with one another, 
enabling, for example, users of the World Wide Web to locate and 
retrieve the information they seek. Operating systems perform a 
similar function, allowing hardware devices and software 
applications to communicate with a computer. Indeed, it is Windows' 
consistency that makes it so valuable.
    10. As the District Court recognized in its Findings of Fact, 
with Windows the operation of both the computer and the software is 
the same from computer to computer. This means that the same 
software will run on all Windows-based PCs and, by and large, all 
hardware devices can be used as well. Hence, the consumer avoids the 
need for time-consuming, often expensive retraining, and thus has a 
greater incentive to learn how to use the existing system. Also, the 
widespread acceptance that Windows enjoys also makes it easier to 
ensure that computer products (both hardware and software) work the 
way they are supposed to, and work well with each other. Operating 
system consistency usually means that software will operate normally 
even if the type of computer changes. For example, WordPerfect will 
function as advertised on a Windows-based Dell computer or a 
Windows-based Compaq computer.
    11. In its consistency from one computer and software program to 
another, Windows is markedly different from the UNIX operating 
system. That system is in reality a collection of similar operating 
systems, including Sun's Solaris, Digital's UNIX, HP's HP-UX, IBM's 
AIX and SCO's UnixWare. See http://www.techweb.com/encyclopedia/
defineterm?term=unix. Although different versions may be desirable 
with respect to many products, for most computer users such a 
proliferation promises nothing but confusion, lost time, fewer 
applications, and higher prices.
    12. For example, a consumer who shifts from one UNIX-based 
computer to another

[[Page 28132]]

UNIX- based computer may find that the two computers use different 
UNIX versions with different features, functions, and 
idiosyncrasies. Consequently, the consumer may have to devote 
considerable time and expense learning how to perform the same tasks 
on the second UNIX- based computer that she already knew how to 
perform on the first platform. Worse still, the software 
applications or hardware equipment she purchased for and used on the 
first computer may be incompatible with the version of UNIX 
installed on the second computer. And a UNIX user obviously has less 
incentive to develop skills tailored to her particular system if it 
is likely that she will use a different UNIX operating system in the 
future.
    13. For these reasons, the cost per potential customer of 
developing a piece of software for the Windows operating system is 
significantly lower than the cost for the UNIX operating system, 
which translates into more software and lower prices for consumers.
    14. In addition, more than any other operating system, Windows 
has remained compatible with software written for older Windows 
versions. As a result, consumers have much greater confidence that 
the software they purchase will work when they upgrade to a new 
Windows release. Hardware manufacturers and developers similarly 
face much less risk that their R&D expenditures will be stranded 
if Microsoft releases a new version.
    15. Windows' Low Cost to Consumers. The Windows operating system 
also allows the developer, or other providers of support services, 
to support end-users at minimal cost. Each operating system not only 
has signature application interfaces and user commands, it also 
presents its own set of bugs and system errors. Thus, to provide 
software or hardware support, a developer must train personnel to 
identify and understand the idiosyncrasies of each operating system 
under which it markets its product. These increased support costs 
increase prices and decrease consumer demand for products and 
services.
    16. Consumers, moreover, obtain all of these benefits 
inexpensively. Compared to the cost of a typical PC, and to the cost 
of the software typically installed on that PC, the cost of Windows 
(at about 5%) is relatively small. A low price, coupled with all the 
benefits stemming from Windows' widespread use, drives up demand by 
making computer products more affordable and attractive to 
consumers.
    17. The widespread use of an inexpensive, constantly evolving 
operating system is particularly important in an industry as dynamic 
as the information technology industry, which constantly generates 
both new products and new uses for those products, and for which new 
developments such as the Internet can redraw the competitive 
landscape overnight. A popular operating system like Windows allows 
consumers and developers to act quickly and with confidence that 
software and hardware will work on most PCs today and in the future. 
And the fact that many consumers choose Windows adds a measure of 
stability to a highly dynamic industry. This Court should avoid any 
remedies that would threaten or undermine these benefits. Potential 
Adverse Effects of the Litigating States' Proposals on Consumers and 
the IT Industry
    18. The RPFJ will increase consumer choice while maintaining the 
integrity of the Windows platform. OEMs and consumers will be free 
to add whatever products they choose, even to the startup sequence, 
or to disable access to Microsoft middleware, but consumers will 
still be able to choose Microsoft products and programmers will 
still be able to invoke Windows' full functionality. RFPJ u III.
    19. In contrast, the Litigating States' proposals will impose 
tremendous costs on the IT industry, its consumers, and the public 
at large.
    20. Balkanizing Windows. A central problem with the Litigating 
States' proposals is that they would allow OEMs to create what would 
amount to separate versions or flavors of the Windows platform. As a 
result, the proposal would set in motion a process that could well 
result in the balkanization of Windows, to the detriment of IT 
companies and consumers alike.
    21. The Litigating States' proposals would require Microsoft to 
offer stripped-down versions of Windows, with the middleware 
elements removed, at reduced prices. OEMs could then either leave 
those elements out altogether or replace them with competitors' 
products. As a result, a software developer can no longer assume 
that particular Windows components will be readily available to 
consumers. The developer must then purchase the needed feature from 
Microsoft and include it with its own program, or it must force the 
customer to purchase it from Microsoft. Either way, both the 
developer and the consumer would ultimately suffer from the need for 
a second, unnecessary transaction.
    22. As an example, suppose that a company had an application 
that relied upon a Windows innovation to automatically support the 
display and navigation of its HTML-based on-line help system. The 
proposed remedy lets OEMs sell Windows without that support 
middleware, so the developer would have to incur the costs to 
create, distribute, and support its own middleware for on-line help 
display without delivering any greater value to customers.
    23. The Litigating States' proposed remedy, moreover, actually 
gives OEMs an incentive to strip down Windows before offering it to 
consumers. That is because Microsoft shall offer each version of the 
Windows Operating System Product that omits such Microsoft 
Middleware Product(s) at a reduced price (compared to the version 
that contains them). Litigating States' Proposed Final Judgment u 1. 
Under the Litigating States' mistaken notion of Middleware, Windows 
itself would have been called Middleware, since it originated as an 
application running on top of DOS. There can be no doubt that the 
implementation of this concept would effectively balkanize what is 
now a uniform, coherent software platform. This balkanization would 
of course destroy one of the characteristics of Windows that makes 
it so valuable to developers of software and hence consumers its 
consistency from one Windows-based PC to the next.
    24. Uncertainty in the IT Industry. Yet another major cost of 
the States' proposal is the tremendous uncertainty it would create 
and, indeed, already has created in the industry and the associated 
financial markets. The uncertainty surrounding the long-term 
implications of the proposed remedies is already causing software 
and hardware developers, as well as their current and prospective 
clients, significant harm. I do not believe that the vast majority 
of the conduct remedies proposed by the Litigating States will do 
anything but create an unwieldy regulatory regime for software and 
hardware designers.
    25. A major source of uncertainty has to do with the future of 
the Windows platform. We do not know whether, assuming that the 
Litigating States' proposals or similar proposals are adopted, 
Windows will continue to be the standard operating system, or 
whether it will be viable at all.
    26. For all these reasons, the mere fact that the Litigating 
States have proposed such extreme remedies is already creating a 
certain amount of paralysis among those in the IT industry who are 
working to improve existing products and to create the products of 
the future. Conclusion
    27. While the RPFJ is superior to the Litigating States' 
proposals in many ways, a crucial difference is that the RPFJ would 
preserve the integrity of the Windows standard. By doing so, it will 
preserve the integrity of the IT and particularly the software 
development industry.
    28. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is 
true and correct to the best of my knowledge:
    Jonathan Zuck, President,
    Association for Competitive Technology
    Signed this the 25th day of January, 2002



MTC-00027807

From: Shaun Savage
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:04am
Subject: Stop MS, for the comsuner sake!!
    HI
    This is not a legal argument, it is a personal experiance in 
dealing with MS. The settlement is bad. It does not deal the the 
problem of MS rape of the consumer and developer.
    MS Modis Operandi(sp) is to control the access to computers and 
make money! This is at the expense of consumers and developers. When 
Word98 first came out it could not write Word95 format. This 
prevented the two programs sending file back and forth. This forced 
the Word95 user to upgrade(spend money).
    MS does NOT follow standards!!! Even when thay help define the 
standards they break the same standards they help define. This 
forces developers to write new work arounds for the 
``intentianl bugs/features''. This make MS products 
incompatiable with all other software, because these bugs are 
unpublished.
    There is a difference between API (Application Programming 
Interface) and (protocols/file formats). An API requires a library 
that know the (protocol/file format).

[[Page 28133]]

To be interoperable the lowlevel protocols and file formats need to 
be known. This includes security protocols. MS does not intovate!! 
they take existing ideas and comercialize the one method of doing 
that idea. The only reason they can do that is that they are an 
monopoly. If low level formats and protocols are published then the 
``secret'' is in the quality in programming the 
application. This is where the compitition come in. If they can do 
something better than someone else in an open playing field, that is 
the way to compete. An monoculture of computers is very instable. 
the security of MS products is terrible!! When you allow the mix of 
data and program to be exchanged between systems then there is a 
lack of security. MS allows the transfer of data AND code in its 
data documents. VERY BAD! A way to force MS to improve service/
products to the consumer is to allow compitition. To allow 
compitition ALL (that means ALL) low level protocols, file formats, 
and algorithms needs to be in the public domain. MS will try to 
sneak out of doing any change in its MO, and put paper work and 
beurcrat stuff, and legal stuff between change. Just look at the 
lies and ``tricks'' they pulled during the trial phase. 
Any settlement needs to have teeth. Really BIG teeth!!!
    I, as an consumer, can't take legal action against MS, I don't 
have the money, time,...
    I may have a justice case the MS harmed me, but I can never seek 
or have justice on my own.
    ``The goverment is here to protect me from things I can't 
protect myself from''
    Please protect me from Microsoft!
    Shaun Savage
    20477 SW Tesoro CT
    Aloha OR 97006
    [email protected]



MTC-00027808

From: Hans Reiser
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    If you are not able to process html format for proper printing, 
or you lost the html version I sent, please accept this email 
(excepting this sentence) as my comment on the proposed settlement, 
otherwise please accept the html version which preceded this.
    MS Settlement Reflects Deep Failure To Understand Implications 
of ``Patching'' Technology
    The positions of the DOJ, the States, and even Lawrence Lessig 
are based on a failure to understand that something unique to the 
software industry, which programmers call ``patching'' 
technology, makes software products infinitely separable if an 
essential facility called ``source code'' is provided. No 
disclosure of APIs, and no structuring of APIs, can accomodate all 
potential products in the manner that disclosure of source code plus 
use of patching does. Every line of source code is a possible 
location for insertion of new code that forms a new product. This 
new code can be distributed separately from the original source 
code, and post-sale added by the consumer, via what programmers call 
a ``patch''. Patching technology fundamentally changes 
product separability, making separation dependent on the essential 
facility called ``source code''. Non-programmers seem to 
not yet understand this. Persons who work in the Linux industry know 
this from experience, and I will try to convey this experience as 
someone who has built a business from the sale of patches (for the 
ReiserFS filesystem) in the only market where I had access to kernel 
source code.
    Software is unique in that ``Compiler'' technology 
allows consumers to effectively reassemble software themselves.
    A compiler is a computer program that takes a set of 
instructions about how to build a program (called ``source 
code''), and builds the software. Almost all software is 
actually assembled by compilers not humans, and the work of humans 
is almost entirely in creating the source code.
    You have probably never used a compiler to assemble software 
yourself as a consumer because:
    *you are not a Fortune 500 company with a staff of trained 
system administrators
    *you probably use Windows not Linux, and Windows does not give 
you access to the essential facility known as ``source 
code'' that your ``compiler'' needs to reassemble 
your software
    *the new crusade by Linux to make the compilation process user 
friendly has only just started Because you have never done it 
yourself, your intuition may tell you that it is not feasible, or 
that it is not feasible for a large market. Beware this intuition, 
it is simply wrong. The Fortune 500 are a significant market for 
antitrust purposes, and Linux is rapidly moving towards making 
asking compilers to perform reassembly a friendly experience for 
average persons.
    It is frequently efficient to post-sale integrate software for a 
large part of the market, and it is getting more so with time. This 
is deeply different from physical products such as cars, in that 
most persons do not find it as effective to buy a collection of 
parts and self-assemble because they would have to do the work of 
assembly. With software, the computer does the work of post-sale 
assembly, and the consumer simply tells the computer to do it, goes 
to make some tea, comes back, and the job is done.
    For instance, the business that I own (Namesys, see 
www.namesys.com) made its money entirely from sales of a filesystem 
(ReiserFS) that was sold separately from the operating system 
(Linux) for the first few years of our business. The revenues from 
this were enough to support us. Paying consumers such as MP3.com 
would take our source code, add it to the Linux kernel source code, 
use a compiler, let their computer do a few minutes of work to 
reassemble the kernel, and get a better filesystem as a result of 
it. This allowed MP3.com to save $20 million dollars according to 
their estimate. Others in my industry also sell filesystems 
separately from operating systems (www.veritas.com got its start 
that way, and still makes simply enormous amounts of money from 
doing so, there are others....).
    Notice that I say filesystem. Your intuitive notion of what is 
an operating system probably tells you that the filesystem is part 
of the operating system. You may be tempted to think that what is 
part of the operating system is not viable as a product sold 
separately from the operating system. Lessig thought so, and this is 
because he lacks experience selling operating system components in 
the Linux/Unix programming industry.
    Think of Jefferson Parish, and understand that software takes 
the fine distinctions of Jefferson Parish to their extreme:
    *Software can be integrated in its functioning, and yet separate 
in its sale, and this means separate as a product for purposes of 
anti-trust law. (Most software products are functionally integrated 
with a separately sold operating system.)
    *Software can be integrated in its physical distribution, yet 
separate in its sale. (Purchase of a CDROM holding the software is 
often separated from purchase of a license to use, and it is often 
considered efficient by publishers to bundle physical distribution 
without bundling licensing.)
    *Software can be sold and transmitted over the Internet with no 
physical product created at all.
    There is only one characteristic that necessarily defines the 
separation of a software product, and that is the license. A license 
is a contract, and contractual tying is illegal under the Clayton 
and Sherman acts.
    Yet wait, if software products are so easily separable, why 
aren't there far more OS components out there being sold? Control 
over an essential facility is the answer.
    Secret source code can be an essential facility the equal of 
putting a combination lock on every bolt in a car, and then 
declaring the combination to be a trade secret.
    You wouldn't allow this for a car, yet traditional industry 
practice is that source code is kept a trade secret. The crisis our 
industry is facing, in which monopoly control is the norm in all 
parts of it not in infancy, is directly caused by this industry 
practice of secret source code. It is not necessary that the text be 
kept secret for copyright protection on books to be maintained, and 
it is also not necessary for software that the source be kept secret 
to protect ownership of it. Far from it, the underlying historical 
motivation of copyright and patent laws is to bring more information 
out of trade secret status.
    We have a widespread well-entrenched industry practice that 
keeps an essential facility (source code) under the control of 
monopolists (of which Microsoft is merely the largest), and we have 
almost complete monopolization of the software industry in each of 
its mature niches. These are cause and effect.
    I pray to you to not allow their continuance. Open up the 
operating system source code, and go even further. Declare that 
software is per se separable where source code is available. Declare 
source code to be an essential facility. Return copyright and patent 
practices to their historical roots, and require that information 
created be made public if it is to be protected.
    Please do not hesitate to ask me to comment in greater detail or 
respond to your questions in this matter. I am available for in 
person testimony if desired.
    I have great respect for Reilly and Lawrence Lessig generally, 
and for their

[[Page 28134]]

arguments in most other matters, and I hope it is understood that I 
merely have an advantage in possessing ``patches'' sales 
experience.
    As for my needs, please create the legal conditions which will 
allow me to port ReiserFS to Windows and sell it separately from the 
operating system, by giving me the access to source code that I need 
to do the port, and to sell the patch separately from the OS.
    Essential Facilites Related Citations
    [U.S. vs. Trans-Missouri Freight Ass'n, 166 U.S. 290 (1897)] is 
the original precedent.
    [MCI Communications v. AT&T Corp. 708 F.2d 1081 (7th Cir.), 
cert. denied, 464 U.S. 891 (1983)] describes a case more recent (it 
is a persuasive rather than controlling authority). Note that the 4 
part test lacks any component referencing the need for a market to 
have been active at some point prior to the refusal to deal, and is 
the better for that lack.
    Profit To The Monopolist From Tying
    The Chicago School, to which the current DOJ administration 
adheres, holds that there is no incentive to monopolists to engage 
in tying because it believes they cannot extract more profit from 
forced sales of the tied product than they would from raising the 
price of the tying product, unless business efficiencies exist. For 
this reason, they feel that there is no need for the Clayton 
prohibition against tying, and feel there are civil liberty reasons 
to avoid government intervention into markets. Their analysis 
assumes the tied product is part of a fully competitive market, and 
for this reason it is deeply flawed.
    The profit to the monopolist from engaging in tying is the 
difference between the market price and the marginal cost. For less 
than fully competitive markets, which is to say most markets, this 
is a non-zero amount. For software, especially software sold and 
distributed over the Internet, the marginal cost is close to zero, 
and the motivation for engaging in tying is extremely high. Senators 
Sherman and Clayton were much more knowledgable about economics than 
the Chicago School is paid to think (various monopolists have given 
large funding sums to pro-trust law schools). Some might like to 
think that, but for government, free choice expressed in the market 
would free us, but in sad reality the government is not the only 
means by which people organize to control and plunder the public. 
Cartels and monopolies take away our freedoms as well. The only 
thing worse than a government controlled economy is a monopoly 
controlled economy.
    The Settlement As A Whole
    I am opposed to the settlement as a whole. President Bush owns 
stock in Microsoft, and he appointed to head the antitrust division 
at the DOJ someone who is widely known to be opposed to laws against 
tying. When someone is opposed to a law that they are supposed to 
prosecute, they should not be allowed to settle a case their 
predecessor started. The proposed settlement is designed to be 
toothless, and to do nothing. Do not allow President Bush to settle 
this case, and thereby cripple the ability of the next 
administration to enforce the law. The failure of Microsoft and the 
DOJ to adhere to the contact disclosure provisions of the Tunney Act 
is one more reason to reject the settlement.
    Conclusion
    If you have the courage to firmly reject this settlement, if you 
declare software to be per se separable, and if you move 
aggressively to enforce the claim of the States while we wait for a 
new administration, you will have earned the admiration of the 
American people. Some of them will even know this.
    More importantly, you will.
    Sincerely,
    Hans Reiser
    Owner/Operator of Namesys
    Author of ReiserFS, a significant component of Linux
    5918 Marden Lane
    Oakland, CA 94611
    phone: +1 510-;339-;1044 (USA)
    +7 095 290 6405 (I am currently in Russia)



MTC-00027809

From: Joanne 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:08am
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust lawsuit
    Mr. Ashcroft,
    Attached is a letter from me regarding the antitrust lawsuit 
agaist Microsoft. Please consider my feelings on this matter.
    Regards
Joanne Turner
210 Manchester Street
Danville, CA 94506
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I write today to document my support of the recent settlement 
proposed by the DOJ in its antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft. I 
support this settlement because its formalization will mean that 
Microsoft's attention will no longer be diverted and they can get 
back to the business of creating excellent products. The formalized 
settlement will also mean that the IT industry will get the boost it 
has lacked since the beginning of this case. This boost will 
undoubtedly affect our failing economy positively.
    I am pleased with the terms of the settlement as it stands, and 
I feel that Microsoft has made substantial strides to honor these 
terms. The compliance with these terms will ensure that 
competitiveness in the IT industry will be highly increased thereby 
giving consumers greater choices. Microsoft has already agreed to 
give their competitors license to their intellectual property and 
have also granted access to internal codes and protocols. These 
moves are all pro-competition and should more than quell the 
concerns of Microsoft's opponents.
    It is my hope that you will see how crucial formalize this 
settlement is to the consumer, the IT industry and the economy and 
bring this matter to an expeditious close.
    Sincerely,



MTC-00027810

From: Onnie Shekerjian
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
January 28, 2002
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    The United States v. Microsoft Corporation litigation, which was 
brought nearly four years ago, should be ended with the consent 
decree by your Court.
    Products which formed the basis for the Microsoft case in 1998 
have since disappeared, becoming obsolete antiquities to be viewed 
with a smile and a ?remember when? usually reserved for hula-hoops 
and RC Cola. Other issues at the core of the case have also changed 
almost unidentifiably or have been sold or merged with others.
    The failed Microsoft Network is one of the best examples. It was 
part of the case in the beginning, but has since faded from the 
landscape as another of Microsoft's unsuccessful ventures. What's 
lost in the haze in the anti-trust argument is that Microsoft has 
probably experienced as many failures as successes, but instead of 
employing more attorneys to even the playing field by litigation, 
they employed more developers and more R&D folks.
    It's clear that Microsoft's innovations over the past 25 years 
were not anti-competitive, witnessed simply by the robust software 
marketplace we have today. In fact, the products and platforms 
Microsoft offers continue to make other products possible, like 
educational and learning programs.
    New products and consistently decreasing prices cannot be 
symptoms of a closed or anti-competitive marketplace. The cries of 
?monopolist!? against Microsoft, it turns out were an overreach.
    More regulation will only damage one of the most promising 
industries in America. I hope you will sign off on the settlement 
agreement between Microsoft and the Justice Department and nine 
state attorneys general.
    Sincerely,
    Onnie Shekerjian
    1301 East Myrna Lane
    Tempe, Arizona 85284



MTC-00027811

From: Guinn Unger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attorney General John Ashcroft
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I believe that the demands to break up Microsoft in the 
beginning of the antitrust suit against it would have had an adverse 
effect not only on my business but the IT industry as a whole. 
Fortunately, the settlement reached between Microsoft and Justice 
Department is reasonable. To settle this case is in the best 
interests of the consumer and the economy. While I do believe that 
sanctions against Microsoft are appropriate, we need to react 
rationally and not do anything that would result in damage to the 
economy.
    Thank you.
    Guinn Unger, President

[[Page 28135]]

    Unger Technologies, Inc.
    Microsoft Certified Partner
    Compaq Solutions Alliance Partner
    [email protected]
    www.ungertech.com
    281-;367-;2477
    Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a 
fire.--;
    William Butler Yeats



MTC-00027812

From: Frank Patitucci
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 11:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The purpose of this email is to add my voice to those opposed to 
the proposed settlement of the Microsoft Antitrust case. Much 
stronger penalties and remedies are necessary if Microsoft's 
behavior is to change.
    The company has been convicted of committing crimes. It needs a 
punishment that matches the crime.
    I am the CEO and Chairman of a private, employee owned company 
with about $20 million revenue and 200 employees. We provide 
employee relocation services to corporations when they transfer 
their employees. I am a card carrying capitalist. I have a degree 
from Stanford Graduate School of Business and have served as a part 
time professor there. Our capitalist system is the most productive 
economic engine ever invented. BUT it needs to be protected and 
guided by government (all branches) in order to continue to serve us 
and to be a model for the rest of the world.
    Unfortunately, Microsoft represents capitalism at its worst. 
Here's how Microsoft's anti-competitive and anti-capitalistic 
behavior affects my company.
    First, our company is now almost entirely dependent on Microsoft 
technology to provide our services. Frankly, when our computers go 
down we cannot do productive work. We are dependent on internal and 
web based systems to communicate with our clients, to manage our 
vendors and to perform basic business functions. All of our systems 
are Microsoft. And according to our IT staff ``we have no 
choice''.
    Second, Microsoft limits the software we can purchase. At one 
point we had a database system called Foxpro. Foxpro was purchased 
by Microsoft. We purchased an accounting system called Great Plains. 
Great Plains was also purchased by Microsoft. We used to use word 
processor, spreadsheet, e-mail and presentation software produced by 
other companies that worked on the Microsoft operating system. I am 
now told by our IT staff that we can no longer purchase these 
products because they are not ``compatible'' with our 
other software. What happened to the companies that produced these 
excellent products? ``We have no choice''.
    Third, we are paying more to Microsoft software than we should. 
How else could they accumulate $35 billion in cash in the face of 
the current recession? When I ask our staff what would happen if 
Microsoft increased tripled their licensing fees, they say, 
``we have no choice''. We would have to pay whatever price 
they ask. There is no other product or service that we purchase as a 
company, other than public utilities, for which we have absolutely 
no choice.
    The long term success of capitalism depends on free markets, 
fair competition and freedom of choice in selecting products and 
services. We don't have any of these in this very important sector 
of our economy, due to the illegal practices of one company: 
Microsoft.
    I believe the Courts have two choices. The first is to allow 
Microsoft to maintain it's monopoly. If so it should be declared a 
public utility and regulated as such. Alternatively, the company 
should be broken up into enough parts that will encourage 
competition. This kind of remedy has proven to be successful in both 
the oil and telephone industries.
    The proposed settlement is neither of these, and should be 
rejected. One last point, the fact that Microsoft is actively 
lobbying for the proposed settlement is cause for very great 
concern. We need to remember that Microsoft committed crimes and the 
remedies should be painful to the criminal. The current solution 
will send the worst message possible to current and future 
capitalists.
    Sincerely,
    Frank M. Patitucci
    Chairman, CEO
    ReloAction



MTC-00027813

From: Carlos Andrade
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 16, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
The Justice Department
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement between the 
Department of Justice and Microsoft. I am not as acquainted with all 
the details of this that I would prefer, but this entire lawsuit 
seems to have come about simply because some of Microsoft's 
competitors grew weary of trying to compete with Microsoft's Free 
Internet Explorer. I personally use IE and have done so for a while. 
I appreciate the fact of having free software with the operating 
system that I got with my computer. I understand that Netscape does 
not appreciate not being able to get my $40 or so dollars which I 
would have had to pay to them to get an Internet Explorer, because 
Microsoft provided it for free. This, in my opinion, is not a proper 
utilization of our legal system.
    I use Microsoft products in my business and have found that 
their software is simply better and more reliable than anyone 
else's. I have used Netscape which I had received from my ISP, but I 
found Microsoft's product more user friendly and les problematic 
when it came to updates. Microsoft exerted no amount of influence 
for me to reach that conclusion. Simple experience has done that.
    I believe that this lawsuit was simply an effort to force 
Microsoft to ``dumb down'' its efforts and allow other, 
software developers a chance at catching up. I also think that when 
a customer buys an operating system that has some added features 
such as a stable Internet explorer, the only one that benefits is 
the consumer. They don't need to go out and purchase additional 
software to get on the web which is what most customer are now 
getting computer for. This settlement has thankfully nullified the 
effort to separate IE form Windows. It is fair and offers pragmatic 
answers to complex problems, such as competitors'' worries 
about interoperability of Windows and OEMs irritation with Microsoft 
for shipping additional software along with Windows. Though the 
settlement extends a bit beyond the scope of the original lawsuit, 
it does end the litigation and should, in my opinion, be accepted.
    Sincerely,
    Carlos Andrade
    Carlos Andrade
    Network Administrator



MTC-00027814

From: carlos kennedy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:13am
Subject: Fw: Attorney General John Ashcroft Letter
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
January 28, 2002
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am extremely pleased to hear that the Justice Department has 
finally decided to end its persecution of Microsoft, and agree to a 
settlement. Microsoft was never a monopoly; it simply provided the 
best product that people enjoy.
    I hope that people will appreciate what Microsoft has sacrificed 
in order to bring an end to this settlement. Among the many terms 
they have agreed to, Microsoft has promised to allow computer 
manufacturers to pick and choose not only what Windows programs they 
will feature, but they can also include numerous Microsoft 
competitive programs in the computers they ship.
    There are, of course many other terms in the settlement that are 
also damaging to Microsoft, but I just wanted to make a brief point, 
as I'm sure there will be numerous emails coming in on the side of 
Microsoft. Thank you for taking the time to hear me out on this 
matter.
    Sincerely,
    Carlos Kennedy
    4 Marwood Court
    Flat Rock, NC 28731
    828-;697-;1203



MTC-00027815

From: James D Lane
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen;
    This thing has drawn on far to long. I shiver to think of going 
back to the good old days of DOS. Force an end to this now and don't 
let the states draw this out any longer. Jim Lane, a Windows fan.



MTC-00027816

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 28136]]

Date: 1/28/02 11:13am
Subject: Re: Has Your Opinion Been Counted?
    THE ECONOMICS OF THIS COUNTRY HAVE BEEN DAMAGED BY THE US 
GOVERNMENT BRINGING AN ANTITRUST SUIT AGAINST MICROSOFT, WHICH 
COMPANY HAS DONE MORE TO ADVANCE COMMUNICATIONS AND THE COMPUTER 
INDUSTRY IN THIS COUNTRY THAN ANY ONE ELSE.
    FOR LORD'S SAKE, PLEASE ACCEPT THE SETTLEMENT NOW BEFORE THE 
COURTS AND LET'S GET ON WITH THE REAL BUSINESS OF THE COUNTRY. TOUGH 
COMPETITION BETWEEN COMPANIES IS WHAT HAS MADE THIS COUNTRY GREAT.
    THOSE STATES THAT DON'T WANT TO ACCEPT THIS AGREEMENT SHOULD BE 
THROWN OUT OF THE UNION. THE PEOPLE OF THEIR STATES HAVE BENEFITED 
FROM MICROSOFT AND ITS CREATIVE OPERATING SYSTEMS FAR MORE THAN ANY 
ALLEGED UNPROVEN DAMAGE.
    THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ALMOST RUINED IBM WITH THE EXPENSES OF 
ITS ANTITRUST ACTI ON AGAINST THEM AND THEY HAVE GONE A LONG WAY IN 
DAMAGING THE ABILITY OF MICROSOFT TO COMPETE IN THE MARKET PLACE 
WITH THE EXPENSE OF DEFENDING THEMSELVES AGAINST SOME AN UNWARRATED 
ANTITRUST ACTION..
    ALFRED C. BODY [email protected]



MTC-00027817

From: Scott Ventura
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    From:
Scott Ventura
9 West Squire Drive Apt 1
Rochester NY 14623
585-;475-;9865
[email protected]
To:
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
u.S. Department of Justice
 601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
FAX: 202-;307-;1454 or 202-;616-;9937
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Remedy Proposal
    I am writing to express my disapproval of certain terms of the 
remedies set forth in the antitrust case against Microsoft. My 
concerns stem from examining the document located at the following 
URL: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9400/9495.htm
    The proposed remedy is a bad idea. As currently outlined, it 
allow Microsoft to gain an even larger market share rather than 
force it to compete more fairly.
    Documentation/Disclosure/Licensing of Security-Related 
Interfaces III 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 a particular installation or group of installations 
of anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital rights 
management, encryption or authentication systems, including without 
limitation, keys, authorization tokens or enforcement criteria; or 
(b) any API, interface or other information related to any Microsoft 
product if lawfully directed not to do so by a governmental agency 
of competent jurisdiction.
    There is a saying in the computer security industry: 
``Security by obscurity is no security at all.'' The 
phrasing in the above passage gives Microsoft leeway to obscure from 
public scrutiny the protocols and APIs that are of greatest 
importance to computer security. Encryption and authentication are 
complicated concepts. Encryption systems must be subjected to 
extensive attacks by the security community at large before they can 
be trusted. Furthermore, the interfaces to the encryption system 
must also be examined by security experts before they can be 
trusted. According to III J 1, Microsoft will not be required to 
document, disclose, or license this information to the vendors of 
security-related products whose security would be compromised by 
flaws in the API or protocol. Microsoft will be the only company in 
possession of the information needed to make security-related 
software secure.
    Although I am no fan of digital rights management systems, I 
must express my concern for copyright holders, as well. Copyright 
holders will be subject to the greatest losses if any level of the 
digital rights management system is compromised. If the decision of 
to whom to document, disclose, and license the details of the 
digital rights management system in Windows is left solely to 
Microsoft, then Microsoft could enter into exclusive agreements with 
some copyright holders and not others. This would result in an 
imbalance in the ability of content providers and copyright holders 
to protect their properties to the abilities of the best experts 
royalty money can buy.
    Worse, Microsoft could elect to not document, disclose, or 
license these details to any non-Microsoft entity. Then Microsoft 
would be poised to become the only copyright holder with access to 
the information required to make working digital rights management 
systems for their properties.
    Conclusion
    Microsoft is an extremely slippery company. They have reached 
their current position of market dominance through questionable 
business practices and not quality product. I sincerely hope that 
the final version of the remedies forces Microsoft to either produce 
good software or get out of the way so others can. We've been 
tolerating insufficiently useful computers for too many years 
already.
    Respectfully,
    Scott D. Ventura
    --;
    Scott Ventura
    [email protected]
    http://FeedMyEgo.com/



MTC-00027818

From: Brian Gollum
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
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 to give my comments on the 
Microsoft antitrust
    settlement. I believe this settlement is counter to the 
interests of the American public, deleterious to the American 
economy, and inadequate given the findings of fact in the trial. 
Microsoft's anti-competitive practices are counter to the law and 
spirit of our free-enterprise system. These practices inhibit 
competition, reduce innovation, and thereby decrease employment and 
productivity in our nation. Microsoft's monopolistic practices cause 
the public to bear increased costs and deny them the products of the 
innovation which would otherwise be stimulated through competition. 
The finding of fact which confirmed that Microsoft is a monopoly 
requires strict measures which address not only the practices they 
have engaged in in the past, but which also prevent them from 
engaging in other monopolistic practices in the future.
    It is my belief that a very strong set of strictures must be 
placed on convicted monopolists to insure that they are unable to 
continue their illegal activities. I do not think that the proposed 
settlement is strong enough to serve this function.
    Sincerely,
    s/Brian L. Gollum
    Brian L. Gollum
    5820 Phillips Avenue
    Pittsburgh, PA 15217
    412-;422-;8455
    p.s. I agree with the problems identified in Dan Kegel's 
analysis of the settlement .



MTC-00027819

From: Erin Barnes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think it is time to end the suit against Microsoft. The 
settlement is sufficient and will allow Microsoft and the rest of 
the industry to move on and continue building great products for 
consumers. The continuation of this suit is bad for the US econonmy 
and bad for consumers.
    Thank you,
    Erin Barnes
    Pacifica, CA



MTC-00027820

From: j jasper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    a bad idea
    please reconsider
    thanks



MTC-00027821

From: 
[email protected]@i
netgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the settlement is balanced and fair for the industry 
and consumers. Given the

[[Page 28137]]

current climate after the recession and 9/11, I feel that we need to 
settle this and not let it drag on, so we can focus on economic 
recovery and fighting external enemies.
    Thanks, Diana Heileman
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw 




MTC-00027822

From: Thomas Vaught
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a software developer for over 11 years, I am very 
dissappointed in the Microsoft settlement. It basically validates 
the Microsoft monopoly without any acknoledgment of guilt or 
meaningful reparations to the industry they have damaged.
    I believe that Microsoft has illegally obtained their monopoly 
and are using it to further their reach while keeping innovative 
technology such as Java from reaching consumers.
    Please consider forcing Microsoft to ship a standards compliant 
version of Java with their operating system. This will allow 
developers and consumers to benefit from the latests technology for 
writing and delivering applications.
    Also, I believe that Microsoft should be forced to ship Netscape 
along with Internet Explorer so that consumers will have a choice of 
browers.
    Thank you for your time and consideration.
    Thomas E. Vaught
    9844 S. Bucknell Way
    Littleton, CO 80129



MTC-00027823

From: chip@the-
altmans.net@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the remedy is fair and should end the case completely. I 
do not feel that Microsoft has hurt the public in any matter. Ten to 
fifteen years ago the computer industry was in a mess. There was no 
standard operating system. If you went to purchase a computer at 
Radio Shack you would get a computer running Deskmate. If you went 
to an Apple distributor you got the Apple operating system. If you 
went to IBM you got their OS operating system. And then of course 
you had Windows. Kids in school learned Apple but could not go into 
businesses and run their computers. The average person had to have 
an apple computer so their kids could do homework and an IBM 
computer so they could work at home.
    Since then and thanks to Microsoft the industry has been 
standardized, kids in school can go out in the world and run 
computers. Employees can go home and work on a computer with the 
same system they use at work. By becoming standardized, how does 
this hurt consumers? Microsoft has saved the average consumer 
thousands of dollars. By their continued innovation and development 
of the operating system they have added tools and recourses that 
would have cost the average consumer a lot of money. If Microsoft 
charged for each addition to its product, or forced the consumer to 
purchase such things as Internet explorer, word, notepad, a 
calculator, Paint, the basic TCP/IP protocols, the average person 
could not afford these add ons and would be shut out of the 
internet.
    As for Internet Explorer, that was the best thing that Microsoft 
ever did. It made surfing the web enjoyable. Question, did you ever 
try to use Netscape Navigator before Internet Explorer came along, I 
have and it sucked. You had to pay around $50.00 for it, it took 
several hours to down load and would crash so often that trying to 
look up one item would take hours. Microsoft came and gave you 
Internet Explorer, which at first had its problems, but when they 
finally integrated into the operating system, it was fantastic, you 
could surf the net and really enjoy the experience. System hangs and 
lockups that occurred often before integrating disappeared. And by 
integrating the software it saved me money, how DID this hurt me? I 
know the argument it hurt competition, my argument is it did not 
hurt competition, it caused competition. It caused Netscape to wake 
up and make a better product. At a more reasonable price, this let 
the consumer save money by being able to buy a! better product at a 
lower cost. Microsoft did nothing wrong. Those consumers that wanted 
Netscape still continue to use it, if Netscape wanted to keep 
customers, and gain customers, they should have developed a product 
that knocked the socks out of Internet Explorer, but did they no, 
they cried and sued.
    They gave up, because they would not take the time and resources 
to develop a better product. I, know, the argument how could they 
when they did not have the money because Microsoft was giving the 
product away, simple, build it and they will come. The consumer 
wants better products and if the consumer found an item better those 
that can afford will buy it.
    Is it wrong, to build your business, and to protect your 
business. NO, it is not wrong! Microsoft played hard ball, yes, but 
how is that different from any other company that wants to grow, 
expand, and make a difference. Netscape, AOL, Sun Microsystems and 
others are playing hard ball now, buy suing Microsoft, because of 
their jealousy over the dominance Microsoft has. If the companies 
really cared about the consumer, they would build better products 
that would blow Microsoft way. But do they no, the run and scream 
and sue Microsoft, because Microsoft does not play fair. If these 
companies would build better products on the same caliber as 
Microsoft, consumers will go there; they will buy what they want. 
But stripping down Windows will only hurt the consumer, because the 
costs associated with buying each piece of software will be more 
than the average consumer can afford. But those that can afford the 
software will buy the better software. How is this any different ! 
from the auto industry? Yes, I know that there are several companies 
competing equally, If I went to ford to buy car should they be 
required to give me a stripped down car. So that I can go to 
Chrysler to purchase the motor, to Bose for the stereo, to Goodyear 
for the tires, to Monroe Muffler for the Shocks, and Muffler. NO, 
they provide the basic systems and then you buy the additional or 
custom items that you want. Microsoft does that they provide the 
consumer with the basics and let the consumer buy what they want. 
The problem is the other companies are not making products that are 
better and more desirable.
    End the lawsuit now and let Microsoft go back and build and 
innovate so that the envelope of information and knowledge becomes 
more reliable and available to the average consumer, and so that 
these other companies will be forced to push the envelope even 
further buy building better software. If these companies would just 
worry about building better software that pushes the limits, they 
would not have to worry about Microsoft.



MTC-00027824

From: Wilhelmina J Matern
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:16am
Subject: mICROSOFT sETTLEMENT
    Dear DOJ,
    May I beg of you either to stop this Microsoft settlement 
nonsense, or just retire and get out of the way?
    This is all making our government look like something we can all 
be thoroughly ashamed of. To spend this much time on Microsoft's 
``unfairness'', a company so productive and worthwhile to 
America's economy - and by a government so monopolistic and 
unproductive of any real benefit to the public, and towards which we 
are becoming more and more cynical in re the grandstanding for self-
aggrandizement that is about all we see government officials doing 
anymore.... we hear or see another thing on this suit and we just 
cry out ``oh,no!''. While we are all thinking about an 
economic stimulus and instead this goes on and on and on and..... 
the ultimate non-sequitur. Please, get it over with and move on to 
Marc Rich, or the dishonest Fish and Game people trying to shut down 
so much of our economy with lynx hairs, or the mess DOI has made of 
Indian Trust Funds, or .. you can name it, we know you can.
    Please reassure us again that the federal government sees and 
understands itself as the chief impediment to justice in society 
today and will not tolerate this core human indecency in Washington 
any longer. And believe me, we'll be pulling for you again with loud 
hurrahs soon's we see the first inkling of it!!!
    We DO wish you all the very best,
    Rev. Dick Matern
    Ft Defiance ,AZ



MTC-00027825

From: Rich Smith
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov.''
Date: 1/28/02 11:09am
Subject: Punish Microsoft
    Dear Sirs,
    PLEASE punish microsoft.
    Richard A. Smith
    Thousand Oaks, California.



MTC-00027826

From: Chip Witt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:17am

[[Page 28138]]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    The proposed settlement against Microsoft has many flaws, but my 
problem with it is more philosophical in nature than most that I 
have heard. My understanding is that this judgment is supposed to be 
a punitive measure to correct monopolistic behavior in what should 
have been an open market place. With that in mind, should not the 
mere threat of such judgment modify Microsoft's behavior?
    I have followed the proceedings against Microsoft fairly closly, 
as I am an IT Professional. During the trial through today, 
Microsoft continues to forge ahead mightyly developing partnerships 
and products that forcably squeeze competitors out of any market 
they decide to pursue. It is my humble opinion that the proposed 
settlement should take greater care to protect the consumer by 
evening up the playing field on which Microsoft competes. I see this 
proposed settlement as nothing more than a slight public slap on the 
wrist. Although it is a step towards the right direction in limiting 
some of Microsoft's anti-competitive practices, it does not prevent 
Microsoft from finding new ways to exploit the gains they have made 
in the market place as a monopolist.
    This is much akin to closing the barn door after the cow has 
already gotten out. More must be done.
    Thank you for your time and the opportunity to comment. --;
    CW
    Chip Witt, MBA
    Witt'z End Technologies
    PO Box 885
    Cotati, CA 94931-;0885
    (V) 1-;888-;719-;9277
    (F) 1-;800-;514-;3098
    (E) [email protected]
    (W) www.wittzend.com



MTC-00027827

From: Fairborn Area Chamber of Commerce
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attention:
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Trail Attorney,
Department of Justic,
Washington DC
    Microsoft has for many years provided products to consumers and 
businesses and has also provided opportunities for other such 
companies to develop programs for the Windows system as well. The 
settlement worked out by the Department of Justice and the 
bipartisan group of state attorneys general to bring the anti-trust 
case to an end should be agreed to by all parties in order for 
people to return to work especially during this critical period we 
are now facing in our economy. We support the Department of justice 
and the Attorneys General for their untiring efforts to put an end 
to this case and agree to a settlement that is in our nation's best 
interest. We don't need any more people added to our unemployment 
roles.
    John G. Dalton, Executive Director
    Fairborn Area Chamber of Commerce
    12 N. Central Ave.
    Fairborn, OH 45324
    Ph: (937) 878-;3191 FAX: (937) 878-;3197
    E-Mail: [email protected]
    Web Page: www.fairborn.com



MTC-00027828

From: 
[email protected]@ine
tgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please refer to the attached letter concerning my support of the 
proposed Microsoft settlement.
    (See attached file: USAG DJ 25-Jan-02.doc)
    This message and any attachments are confidential to the 
ordinary user of the e-mail address to which it was addressed and 
may also be privileged. If you are not the addressee you may not 
copy, forward, disclose or use any part of the message or its 
attachments and if you have received this message in error, please 
notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete it from 
your system.
    Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be secure or 
error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, 
arrive late or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept 
liability for any errors or omissions in the context of this message 
which arise as a result of Internet transmission.
    Any opinions contained in this message are those of the author 
and are not given or endorsed by the HSBC Group company or office 
through which this message is sent unless otherwise clearly 
indicated in this message and the authority of the author to so bind 
the HSBC entity referred to is duly verified.
    CC:[email protected]@
inetgw
Daniel Jack
81 Bleloch Avenue
Peekskill, NY 10566
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am writing to voice my opinion of the Microsoft antitrust 
case.
    I think the U.S. Department of Justice should accept the terms 
of the settlement, which represents the best possible outcome.
    Microsoft has agreed to several points, including the licensing 
of Windows operating system products to the 20 largest computer 
companies. For the sake of concluding this suit, Microsoft even 
agreed to several terms that extend to products not at issue in the 
lawsuit.
    Furthermore, I am a proud shareholder (since 1995) and a user of 
Microsoft products. I believe that I and many other customers 
worldwide have benefited from Microsoft's products and pricing and 
have never been harmed by any of their actions in the very 
competitive global marketplace for information technology, 
particularly PC software.
    This is a respectable agreement. The economy and the American 
consumer should benefit from the terms in this settlement. I hope 
you will support it.
    Sincerely,
    Daniel Jack



MTC-00027829

From: Joanne Backs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My comment on the Microsoft Settlement is that it should be 
accepted by all and the litigation ended!
    Enough is enough.
    P.S. I use Netscape Navigator on an Apple imac.
    Joanne Backs



MTC-00027830

From: Aldo Mancini
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 11:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am attaching a letter to express my opinion regarding the 
lawsuit against Microsoft. Please provide this correspondence your 
necessary attention.
    Sincerely,
    Aldo Mancini
    President & CEO
    Mancini Enterprises, Inc.
    1940-;1 North Commerce Parkway
    Weston, FL 33326
    Phone: (954)217-;9113 x101
    Fax: (954) 217-;0113
    e-mail: [email protected]
    URL: www.mancinienterprises.com
    Notice: The information contained in this communication is 
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it 
is addressed and for others authorized to receive it. It may contain 
confidential or legally privileged information. If you are not the 
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, 
copying, distribution, or taking any action in reliance on these 
contents is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you received 
this communication in error, please notify us immediately by 
responding to this e-mail and then delete if from your system. 
Mancini Enterprises, Inc. is neither liable for the proper and 
complete transmission of the information contained in this 
communication nor for any delay in its receipt.
<>
CC: ``fin(a)mobilizationoffice.com''
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    In the hopes to be heard, regarding the Microsoft lawsuit, I am 
writing this letter to express my opinion.
    As a small business owner, we always strive to provide our 
customers the highest level of service and products they are 
purchasing from us. In order to differentiate us from our 
competitors, from time to time, we include free services and add-ons 
to our products to build on our promise to the customer.
    I have always disagreed with the lawsuit against Microsoft and I 
believe that Microsoft is entitled to dictate the terms under which

[[Page 28139]]

it will sell its software, even to its OEM customers. The uniform 
pricing mechanism will give the 20 OEMs all the benefits of a union 
with none of the hassles vis-a-vis Microsoft. The very idea that a 
few of Microsoft's most ardent competitors wanted government 
sanction to pillage Microsoft's success is disturbing.
    I am somewhat pleased that this settlement has been accepted. It 
has the advantage of ending this sad chapter in our histor3,. 
However, the terms of the settlement seem to give the government one 
last poke at Microsoft by requiring it to release some of its 
venerated source code to its competitors. As a Microsoft partner, 
Microsoft has always provided to us an insight to its source code to 
allow us to build better software products without releasing its 
right to the ownership of such code. It should be to the discretion 
of Microsoft to determine which companies, if any, need to be 
provided access to this valuable asset. This, however, is a topic 
for a future letter.
    For now, let's just leave the settlement stand as is and move 
on.
    Sincerely,
    Aldo Mancini
    CEO
    Mancini Enterprises, Inc.



MTC-00027831

From: T. Gray Curtis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:23am
Subject: Comments on Microsoft settlement
To: Department of Justice
From: Thomas Gray Curtis, Jr.
1443 Beacon Street, Apt 617
Brookline, MA
Subj: Comments re Microsoft Settlement
Date: January 28, 2002
    Bill Gates wants to insure innovation by Microsoft. To further 
this objective, Microsoft has impaired the ability of others to 
innovate. A marketing genius, Gates wants to convince everyone that 
empowering innovation by Microsoft is in everyone's interest. 
Microsoft has damaged the software industry by restraining trade as 
means of maintaining competitive advantage. I cannot quote you 
specific dollar values of the impact of this restraint, but I will 
relate to you one anecdotal instance which may be an illustration.
    During the late 1980's and early 1990's two colleagues and I 
were developing software for IBM and subsequent electrical utility 
companies. The software implemented on a PC the functionality of Geo 
Facilities Information System (GFIS) software, which required a more 
expensive mainframe computer. GFIS was used by electrical utilities 
to help them manage their electrical grids. The new software ran on 
IBMs OS2 operating system. Over the course of several years IBM, 
Florida Power and Light and Duke Power probably invested on the 
order of one million dollars in the development.
    As a result of the competition between IBM and Microsoft 
(Windows v OS2), what I refer to as the Microsoft Wars, viability of 
OS2 as a ubiquitous operating system was destroyed. The consequence 
of this was that the cadre of developers creating applications 
software was reduced. For a while in the early 1990s I developed 
software for the AIX unix operating system. The size of that market 
and the cost of unix development drove me out of software 
development by 1995. I have finally, starting in 2002, reentered the 
software development arena. I am reluctantly developing software for 
use under Windows 2000. Primarily because that is the largest 
market.
    I am not privy to the facts with regard to the abrogation of the 
contract between IBM and Microsoft for the development of the 
graphical user interface for OS2. I have seen only from afar, via 
the news media, the machinations of Microsoft in dealings with 
companies such as Sun MicroSystems over JAVA and Netscape and AOL 
over browsers. Microsoft business practices sicken me and damage the 
ability of the software industry to innovate. I had hoped that the 
federal government would seek a remedy which would restore some 
balance to the industry by separating the operating system unit from 
the application development unit. Microsoft is like a black hole in 
our solar system. It suppresses competition to such an extent that 
the light of some new products will never be seen.
    Microsoft's practices will continue unless steps are taken to 
protect the small cap companies which would try to innovate. A case 
in point is the small Rachis Corporation of Marlboro, MA. This 
startup company develops software for the emerging interactive TV 
market. They provide system integration test and evaluation and 
software for hardware manufacturers, application vendors, 
middleware, and network operators. Scientific Atlantic, a set-top 
box manufacturer, partners with RACHIS despite efforts by Microsoft 
to provide software to Scientific Atlantic. Microsoft appears to be 
eyeing the media industry as an arena in which to throw it's weight 
around. Microsoft has created Microsoft TV and with it's holding in 
ComCast has some influence over the deployment of the cable network 
acquired by ComCast from AT&T.
    Please keep an eye open for the Microsoft guerrilla vis a vis 
Rachis.
    Respectfully submitted.
    Gray Curtis



MTC-00027832

From: Ellen Ryan (MSLI)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I came to the U.S.A 4 years ago from the United Kingdom to work 
temporarily while my husband attends university out here. Before I 
came here I believed that America had a fair & competitive 
economic system that rewarded innovation and hard work. I have been 
sorely disappointed. Leave companies free to innovate. Stop using 
tax dollars to defend cases that only satisfy the political agenda 
rather than protect citizens.
    Ellen.



MTC-00027833

From: Mary Rocco
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement--;NO!
BlankRenata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I've been requested by Microsoft to send you a letter in support 
of their settlement, but I will not do that because I OPPOSE THE 
SETTLEMENT. Microsoft continues its predatory and unethical business 
practices unabated and obviously the Department of Justice has not 
gotten its message through to Mr. Gates yet. I think you should 
continue to take steps to curb Microsoft's rapacious and insidious 
monopolistic practices which are not only unfair restraint of trade 
but also extremely detrimental to the end consumer. Microsoft's 
programs act more like viruses than computer applications. Please 
continue attempting to put a stop to this monopoly.
    Sincerely,
    Mary A. Rocco
    3217 Cheviot Vista Place, #108
    Los Angeles, CA 90034-;3546



MTC-00027834

From: Tennison, James
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 11:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I would like to comment on the proposed settlement in the 
Microsoft Antitrust Case.
    The first thing I would like to say is that from day one I have 
been appalled that such a thing as the Microsoft Anti-trust Case 
even exists. It is immoral.
    My family and various relatives have been using Microsoft 
products including MS-DOS, Windows 95, 98, NT, 2000 and Internet 
Explorer for years. Had I been unhappy with Microsoft products I 
could have purchased other brands such as Apple with their Apple OS, 
Sun with their Solaris or Red hat with Linux to name a few. I have 
never been under the ignorant opinion that there are no other 
choices for my computing needs. Microsoft products have worked well 
enough and I've been quite happy with all I could do with them.
    Microsoft is extremely successful for good reason. Microsoft 
products provide a full range of capabilities, have great prices and 
wonderful availability. It is my reasoned opinion that Microsoft 
products have been a boon to the citizens of the United States and 
the world. Microsoft's products have only offered positives to the 
lives of countless people.
    Before you think that I am a total Microsoft zealot I will 
inform you that I have also happily owned and used Sun products (Sun 
Solaris workstations), Silicon Graphics and Apple products 
(Macintosh I, II, Quadra 410). I also happily employ the Netscape 
browser on all three of my PC's.
    I strongly hold that Microsoft has the absolute right to freely 
pursue it's interests in the capitalist market of the United States. 
This includes their right to bundle their various products any way 
they see fit. No one, and certainly not our government, has the 
right to dictate what products Microsoft can produce and must not 
initiate force against this outstanding company. Microsoft

[[Page 28140]]

has always providing products and services in the absence of any 
compulsion. Moreover, Microsoft, unlike the US Government, cannot 
use force to make people buy it's products. And, since the only 
legitimate purpose of government is to deter and punish those who 
use force, the attack on Microsoft because it is successful 
completely inverts the role of government. The Microsoft Anti-trust 
case has once again made our government, justly a protector of 
rights, instead a powerful violator of rights. It is extremely 
disheartening to see such rampant totalitarianism! In addition, the 
antitrust laws being used in an attempt to lynch Microsoft have been 
called into effect not by citizen's complaints against Microsoft's 
products, but by Microsoft's unsuccessful competitors. These 
companies seek to ``win'' in the marketplace by resulting 
to force and not by offering superior products with superior 
marketing. Moreover, instead of using guns themselves to force 
consumers to buy their products, these companies seek to use force 
by proxy, with the US Government acting as their agent. This is 
truly a despicable attempt to influence the market through the pure 
use of force. They are employing the very corrupt anti-trust laws, 
applied by a government on a mistaken crusade to eliminate the 
infidel (a hugely successful Microsoft), to ``win'' in the 
marketplace. This is an unconscionable injustice! This should be the 
illegal activity which is attacked by a just government. Shame! The 
Anti-trust laws used by their willing governmental accomplices were 
unjust at their inception and remain so today. They represent non-
objective law. Laws that should not and must not exits.
    Individual rights, which also apply to the American businessmen 
of Microsoft, are not granted by our government. Just government 
serves only to protect the rights of it's citizens. Microsoft has an 
inalienable right to it's products (bundled as they desire) and 
profits.
    Many smart people in the United States Justice Department have 
created a case against Microsoft based on the subjective egalitarian 
premise that big is bad. They punish success for being success. They 
have erred in that they never sought to fully understand the legal 
premises they employ. To find out whether they are just. They relied 
instead on a history of precedence generated by a wholly mistaken 
initial premise. That premise is that force can and should be used 
to do good. That force should be used to elicit an egalitarian 
ideal. As if the alleged good of society trumps the rights of 
innocent individuals. Actually, our government is employing a 
Marxist socialist concept. The group has rights superior to those of 
the individual.
    Let us place reason firmly in it's seat. Leave Microsoft alone 
to create even better and more successful products for the free 
American capitalist consumer. Drop this unjust case immediately! No 
punishment is due Microsoft. With a great flourish of marketing 
skill, Microsoft has brought the computer to the world and changed 
history. All of you persecutors should feel the guilt of your 
brutish and totally unjust quest to destroy the good because it is 
good.
    Thank you for letting me defend the rights of American 
businessmen.
    James G. Tennison Jr.



MTC-00027835

From: Eric Thompson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Honorable Justices,
    Microsoft has twice been found guilty of serious violations of 
the Sherman Antitrust Act, by a federal District Court and by the 
United States Court of Appeals. While the Court of Appeals reversed 
the breakup order issued by the District Court, it upheld the trial 
court's Findings of Fact and affirmed that Microsoft is guilty of 
unlawfully maintaining its monopoly. As I understand it, the court 
must hold public proceedings under the Tunney Act, and these 
proceedings must give citizens and consumer groups an equal 
opportunity to participate, along with Microsoft's competitors and 
customers.
    Please allow consumers participation.
    Regards,
    Eric
    Eric Thompson
    Strategic Renewables Group
    4834 Hart Drive
    San Diego, CA 92116
    619-;521-;0444 office/mobile
    619-;521-;0515 fax
    [email protected]
    www.StrategicRenewables.com



MTC-00027836

From: Larry Mull
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DEADLINE:In times of a struggling economy, I find it confusing 
that we're still arguing against Microsoft. It's time for this 
settlement to be accepted and let's move on. Or maybe it's about 
states trying to increase their revenues and attorneys building a 
retirement. Sheez. At one time no on thought the Japanese could 
compete in the domestic automobile market. Who's going to be the 
Japanese when it comes to software in 10 to 20 years?
    If we continue, we will prove where businesses should not be in 
the future.



MTC-00027837

From: Carey Gifford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I oppose the proposed Microsoft Settlement for the reason that 
it is not in the best interest of the public at large, nor in the 
interest of the future evolution of electronic technology.
    Carey J. Gifford
    [email protected]
    Alpharetta, Georgia



MTC-00027838

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:27am
Subject: Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    I support Microsoft's point of view. Please register me as a 
supporter of microsoft.
    Joan Peven Smith
    Miami, FL



MTC-00027839

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:27am
Subject: (no subject)
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Dept of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am writing to give my support to the agreement reached between 
Microsoft and the Dept of Justice. I did not support the original 
lawsuit against Microsoft.
    I do not think the case was warranted. The lawsuit was more 
political than any outrage over unethical business dealings. Bill 
Gates has carried the technological revolution on his shoulders. He 
has enabled the average person to become part of the technological 
ago. Does anyone remember what it was like before Microsoft? Bill 
Gates standardized computer software to enable its compatibility 
with other software. And people bought the product, because it was 
the best and it still is.
    Bill Gates has agreed to any number of terms demanded from the 
Dept of Justice. Microsoft has agreed to share its source codes and 
books pertaining to Windows, that Windows use to communicate with 
other programs; Microsoft has agreed to a three person technical 
committee to monitor future compliance; Microsoft has agreed to 
contractual restrictions and intellectual property right.
    This is more than fair.
    Give your approval to this agreement. Allow us to get back to 
work. Honestly, I do not agree government intervention on technology 
and its innovation. it only serves as a hindrance. Microsoft's 
dominance on computer and technology is due to superiority of its 
products and its marketing skills.
    Sincerely,
    Marc Hui



MTC-00027840

From: Your Name
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    I am writing in regard to the proposed settlement in the 
Microsoft Antitrust case. I feel that there are tremendous problems 
with the proposal and support the open letter written by Dan Kegel. 
There you will find my signature along with many many other people 
who are also concerned by this proposal.
    I also support Dan Kegel's essay regarding the problems and 
difficulties that the proposed settlement will create. I hope that 
the Department of Justice will seriously reconsider the problems 
with the plan and work to revise it so that it will be of benefit to 
computer users.
    If Microsoft is not reined in and given more stringent 
guidelines to follow, they will continue to create products which 
don't work and there won't be any alternatives available. I am glad 
that there are alternative operating systems available currently, 
but they deserve

[[Page 28141]]

just as much access to the market as Microsoft has.
    Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter.
    Sincerely,
    John D. Brosan



MTC-00027841

From: James R. McCartney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:27am
Subject: MS v DOJ
    I am against the proposed settlement with Microsoft. It does not 
do enough to punish the software company or ensure changes in 
behavior in the future. Netscape was replaced as the dominant web 
browser by Internet Explorer(IE) because IE was free. Microsoft has 
already been found liable for misusing it's operating system 
monopoly to make this happen. IE is now used by most Internet users 
because it is free and supplied with Windows and Macintosh by 
default. No other browser has a chance to gain market share because 
of this.
    Now that IE has become the leader, it has stopped using 
Netscape's ``plug-in'' technology for enabling helper 
applications to open alternate Internet content. Active X is the new 
proprietary solution and give Microsoft an advantage in writing 
helper applications for IE. Even if they are required to release the 
API(Application Programmer's Interface) for Active X, it still gives 
them the advantage. They have the code first and they have the 
``real code.'' I would not be surprised, nor should 
anyone, if they release to other vendors an inferior subset of the 
API. This will give Windows Media Player, Word, Outlook, and 
Messenger a lead on other current market leaders like Real Player, 
Adobe Acrobat, Eudora, and AOL Instant Messenger.
    Microsoft has also dropped support for Java in it's latest 
operating system, XP. This is hardly in the consumers best interest, 
as a large quantity of useful programs are written in this platform 
independent language. This can only be Microsoft's attempt at 
punishing Sun Microsystems and no one can stop them from doing this. 
They should work with Sun to make a good version of Java for 
Windows. The solution proposed by the Justice Department seems like 
a giveaway. It is notable that it comes right after the executive 
branch has become Republican. I would like to see a more objective 
resolution to the illegal behavior by Microsoft. Thank you...
    James McCartney
    2668 East Hardy Lane
    Fayetteville AR 72703



MTC-00027842

From: Jef Pearlman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Against)
    I'm just emailing to add my vote to those against the current 
proposed settlement. Hopefully I have reached you in time. Plenty of 
others have emailed their reasons, so I won't spend any time 
rehashing the arguments here, except to say that I believe that the 
current settlement in no way punishes Microsoft, and in some ways 
helps them further their use of their monopoly to spread their 
influence in various industries. Thanks.
    Jef



MTC-00027843

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    In this litigation and all such endeavors the United States 
Government has become the ENEMY of the Business Community. If they 
were concerned about the Economy AND the health of the business 
community in the United States they would act like foreign 
governments and support and in some cases provide financial support 
as well instead of hampering and stifling business and research and 
development. Please allow Microsoft and all other businesses compete 
without government interference and do not allow yourselves to be 
manipulated by competitors constantly complaining, they are only 
looking for a government sponsored ``Leg-Up''
    Jerry Purcell
    106 Cedar Drive
    New Britain, PA 18901-;5229
    215-;230-;1911
    CC:[email protected]@
inetgw



MTC-00027844

From: Nathan Stratton Treadway
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 27, 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NE
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    I think the current proposed settlement with Micrsoft is a bad 
idea and should be abandonded.
    It has many faults, but to pick one: my business is dependent on 
using Samba to allow our Unix machines to inter-operate with our 
Windows machines on our network. The proposed settlement does 
nothing to protect the rights of non-commercial projects like Samba, 
and the millions of users of such projects, against Microsoft's 
actions.
    Thank you.
    Nathan Stratton Treadway
    Ray Ontko & Co.
    822 E Main St.
    Richmond, IN 47374



MTC-00027845

From: Bob Petolillo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It's time for the government to back off of private lawsuits 
against businesses and to stop legislating private commerce as much 
as it is.
    The role of government should be to provide NECCESSARY 
regulation of private commerce.
    We have gone WAY BEYOND that role in trying to legislate 
equality and/or fairness into private industry.
    The government bureaucracy is in no way qualified to judge the 
effects of legislation on the citizens and their economy and has 
already caused a great deal of damage to the private sector with its 
extensive meddling.
    Lawsuits and legislation targetted against legitimate 
enterprises like tobacco companies (as disgusting as cigarettes 
are), gun manufacturers, Microsoft, and many others are not the role 
of our government.
    Continued abuse of legislative and executive power is only going 
to continue to erode the faith of the citizens in our government and 
cause more divisiveness and discontent that is already out there. 
Un-neccessary governmental interference and gross fiscal 
irresponsibility have damaged this country greatly. In the latter 
half of the twentieth century our culture has gone a long ways 
toward becoming a ``third-world'' country due, in large 
part, to out-of-control actions by our legislature and the 
government bureaucracy. We have a long way to go still, but I 
shudder to think about the future my children may have to deal with. 
Please re-think your position on the role of government and let's 
get back to the basics of running the government, not running the 
people and industry in it.
    Sincerely;
    Bob Petolillo
    CC:[email protected]@
inetgw



MTC-00027846

From: Sheldon Robinson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I don't feel particularly verbose today, but I've written and 
read much on the reasons Microsoft must be broken into a minimum of 
two companies.
    Microsoft owns the OS which is fine. Microsoft also makes 
applications for their OS which is not fine. Why? Microsoft does not 
fairly publish the specification of the interface to their OS. When 
Microsoft builds an application and another company builds a 
competing application, Microsoft is guaranteed to build the better 
application because they have intimate knowledge of the OS. 
Microsoft knows how the optimize their applications in ways their 
competitor cannot know.
    Any settlement which stops short of breaking Microsoft into an 
OS company and an applications company is in my view and the view of 
many others a lost settlement.
    Sheldon



MTC-00027847

From: Davis, Mark
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 11:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Officials of the Department of Justice,
    As a private citizen and long time user of products produced by 
both Microsoft and its competitors, I support the proposed 
settlement that has been worked out by the DOJ and Microsoft. I feel 
that additional punitive measures would be unfair to both Microsoft 
and, more importantly, to consumers using Microsoft products, and so 
I urge adoption of the settlement as it exists. Thank you.

[[Page 28142]]

    Mark F. Davis
    1110 Manzanita Dr.
    Pacifica, CA 94044
    (650) 355-;8064



MTC-00027848

From: Harold kline
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs and Madams:
    It is time to put to rest the Microsoft Case. This ill-advised 
litigation was likely the cause of the present recession our country 
is enduring, and its continuation is only going to prolong the 
economic troubles.
    While the Tunney Act fails to satisfy Microsoft's most vocal 
critics--; the competitors and their greedy lawyers--;it 
provides a fair solution to the alleged monopolistic practices of 
Microsoft, and it benefits the country as a whole to get this behind 
us and move on. Dragging on this battle will only pad the pockets of 
the lawyers, and a few special interest parties.
    Many consumers, including myself, do not agree that Microsoft 
did anything wrong. Without the Windows technology and the 
innovations that that company continues to develop, the personal 
computer industry wouldn't be half as strong as it is today. Any 
continuation of the litigation against Microsoft only smears the 
entire industry and keeps the economy from recovering.
    Please bring this farce to an end.
    Harold Kline
    Kansas City, MO



MTC-00027849

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Attorney General Renata Hesse:
    The provisions of the Microsoft agreement are tough, but I 
believe the terms-which have met or gone beyond the findings of the 
Court of Appeals ruling-are reasonable and fair to all parties 
involved. This settlement represents the best opportunity for a 
great company like Microsoft (whom has changed the lives of millions 
of people for the better) and the industry to move forward. 
Microsoft has helped so many people work and live more efficiently 
and effectively. It is time to move forward and approve this 
settlement which is in the best interest of the people of this 
country.
    Thank you.
    Jennifer M. Freeman
    833 Trailing Ridge Road
    Franklin Lakes, NJ 07417
    201-;891-;6040



MTC-00027850

From: Don Briggs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear US DOJ,
    One outcome of the Microsoft settlement should be that, when 
submitting information electronically to government agencies, one 
should never be required to submit documents in Microsoft 
proprietary formats. Government agencies should never require text 
documents in Microsoft Word format, for instance. To do so 
reinforces Microsoft's monopoly position.
    Regards,
    Don Briggs
    1530 Lockhart Gulch Road
    Scotts Valley, CA 95066



MTC-00027851

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madame,
    I am a consultant working in the Intelligent Transportation 
Systems area of Transportation Planning. As such, I frequently make 
recommendations to clients of all types, public and private, about 
software acquisition and use.
    This experience has given me a great deal of exposure to 
software vendors (particularly Microsoft) and to the various methods 
they employ in marketing their products and competing with other 
producers. I also have a background in economics (B.A. University of 
Minnesota) and am a certified planner (AICP).
    My concerns stem from the continuing trend of Microsoft's 
alterations to licensing policies and the fact that often times no 
additional value is offered to the consumer, even though a greater 
revenue stream is generated for Microsoft. This, coupled with a 
practice of intentionally making newer versions of products 
incompatible with previous versions, causes a situation of 
``forced'' upgrades for consumers. This is particularly 
troubling for small public entities, such as para-transit providers, 
whose mission is to provide mobility to handicapped persons, often 
on very limited budgets.
    This is relevant to the settlement at hand for two reasons:
    (1) The Settlement does not address the separation of 
applications from operating systems in any meaningful way. Thus 
Microsoft is able to build in version incompatibilities and tie them 
to the operating system itself. In the transportation community, we 
have a joke: ``If Microsoft made cars, every time you changed 
your tires you'd have to build all new roads.'' Although 
exaggerated, this illustrates the point of a monopolist manipulating 
product to ``force'' secondary purchases.
    (2) The Settlement does not address past harm. Under the current 
proposal, a three-person oversight team would be established to 
assure that Microsoft does not further abuse monopolist power. 
Although debate can be had on whether this mechanism would even be 
effective in that role, my concern is more that there is no 
provision for punative action against Microsoft or compensation to 
those harmed by the abuse. An analogy would be a person convicted of 
bank robbery and simply assigning them a parole officer to assure 
that they didn't rob the same bank again.
    For these reasons, I belive that the proposed Settlement is not 
in the best interests of the public and should not be agreed to.
    Thank you for your consideration in this matter,
    Mark R. Gallagher, AICP
    999 Grand Ave. #4
    St. Paul, Mn 55105



MTC-00027852

From: Tim Egbert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attention: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
January 28, 2002
    Sirs and Madams:
    I oppose the Proposed Final Judgment (PFJ) in United States vs. 
Microsoft because it (1) does not adequately address the issues 
raised in Judge Jackson's findings of fact and conclusions of law, 
(2) will not remedy the past illegal monopolistic behavior of 
Microsoft, (3) will not prevent Microsoft from committing future 
monopolistic abuses, (4) will ratify many of Microsoft's practices 
that have been adjudicated as unlawful, and (5) will allow Microsoft 
to continue such practices under the cloak of final judgment.
    Microsoft has been adjudicated to be a monopoly and to have 
acted illegally in many particulars, which rulings have been upheld 
on appeal. It has become evident that to this day, Microsoft does 
not believe it has done anything wrong and is using all means at its 
disposal to avoid any real consequences for its illegal actions. The 
Justice Department and the Court have a duty to promote a remedy 
that is effective and consistent with previous findings in this 
case.
    I believe that Microsoft has shown that it will not negotiate in 
good faith to promote an effective and just settlement of this case. 
It therefore behooves the Justice department and the Federal Court 
not to insist on a negotiated settlement, to fashion a truly 
effective remedy, and to seek to impose such a remedy on Microsoft 
within the proper powers of the judicial system. There is no good 
reason to continue to negotiate with this intransigent and 
adjudicated wrongdoer.
    Rather than restate all the well reasoned arguments against the 
PFJ, I have added my name to the ``open letter'' submitted 
this day by Dan Kegel as set forth on his web site at: http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html.
    Yours truly,
    Timothy P. Egbert, J.D., Ph.D.
    4388 Inverary Dr.
    Salt Lake City, UT 84124
    801-;274-;0476
    CC:Tim Egbert,Attorney General



MTC-00027853

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
2056 E Golf Avenue
Tempe, AZ 85282
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530

[[Page 28143]]

    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The last three years of litigation against Microsoft has been 
unjustified. The original intent of the lawsuit was to protect 
consumer by breaking up a monopoly and stop infringement on consumer 
rights. Microsoft has consistently delivered high quality goods at 
normal prices, which goes against standards definition of a monopoly 
and has never infringed on my rights.
    In fact I think their innovation has standardized the technology 
industry making it easier for users around the world to operate. 
That is why I disagree with some of the terms of the settlement 
because they give Microsoft's interfaces and protocols away. This is 
a violation of Microsoft's intellectual property rights.
    I request that your office finalize the settlement as soon as 
possible and ignore the nine states that are holding this thing up. 
They are obviously not concerned with the public's bets interests. 
Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Joel O'Connell
    cc: Representative Jeff Flake



MTC-00027854

From: Michael Martin
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 11:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Michael Martin
6712 Riviera Drive
North Richland Hills, TX 76180-;8120
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 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,
    Michael R. Martin



MTC-00027856

From: Barling, Roy
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 11:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs/Madams,
    I'm writing to express my opposition to the settlement being 
proposed between some of the States and MicroSoft.
    Microsoft has been convicted, and that conviction upheld on 
appeal, of violating several parts of the Sherman Anti-trust Act. 
The settlement in its current form does nothing to repair the damage 
that has already been done to the software industry. It also does 
nothing to prevent them from continuing to abuse their monopoly 
position. Furthermore it does nothing to place monetary damages on 
their past abuses, nor does it establish any framework to punish the 
abuses that they will most assuredly commit in the future. There is 
no reason that Microsoft should be allowed to keep all of their ill 
gotten gains or continue to abuse their monopoly with anti-
competitive practices. Please consider some of the many suggestions 
already sent in by industry luminaries that would restore 
competition and innovation to the software industry. Thank you.
    Roy Barling, MCSE



MTC-00027857

From: Tony DeCicco
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:37am
Subject: microsoft settlement
Anthony DeCicco CPA / ABV
7710 Cumberland Road
Largo, FL 33777
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    It is high time for this antitrust suit between Microsoft and 
the Department of Justice to come to an end.
    For three years now, people in both the IT industry and many 
average people who depend on Microsoft products, have waited for 
this case to be settled.
    Unfortunately seeing this case put to rest could mean a severe 
change in the way Microsoft does business.
    Opening up its code to the competition and allowing computer 
manufacturers broader freedoms in how they configure Windows will 
mean a serious loss of control over its product for Microsoft, and 
they will have to carefully rethink their business strategy.
    But they obviously feel capable of doing so if they have agreed 
to the settlement, so I can see no reason not to move forward on 
this issue. Let's put an end to this case at the federal level and 
move on once and for all.
    Sincerely,
    Anthony De Cicco CPA / ABV



MTC-00027858

From: Ronald R. Cooke
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 11:39am
Subject: Tunney Act Comments: Microsoft Settlement
    Unfortunatley, the e-mail I sent last week lost the footnotes.
    This attachment should include them.
    Ron Cooke
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Suite 1200
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D. Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530.
Reference: Tunney Act comments in United States of America v. 
Microsoft Corporation, Civil Action No. 98-;1232 (CKK) and 
State of New York v. Microsoft Corporation, Civil Action No. 98-1233 
(CKK).
[email protected]
With copies to: Interested Parties
From: Ronald R. Cooke
Cultural Economist and Industry Analyst
    The Settlement Proposed By The Justice Department Overlooks 
Reality
    Consumers within the Information Systems industry have expressed 
their skepticism about the settlement proposed by the Justice 
Department. In a poll of readers, for example, ZDNet asked: 
``Did Microsoft get off easy in the DOJ settlement?'' 
Seventy four percent of the respondents said ``Yes''. To 
quote columnist David Coursey, ``Nobody is precisely sure what 
it means, but the total effect seems little more than a hand slap 
.... Prohibitions that exist in one section seem to be rendered 
meaningless by another'']
    Consumer and industry respondents to the Tunney review process 
will probably contend that the proposed remedy does not effectively 
end the anticompetitive practices, will not materially deprive the 
wrongdoer of the fruits of the wrongdoing, and will do virtually 
nothing to ensure that the illegality does not recur. The terms of 
the settlement are much too vague to be of much use. They can be 
manipulated and rendered ineffective through the legal process. The 
enforcement mechanism is inadequate. And finally, there is no clear 
cut way to prohibit monopolistic behavior.
    There is a more fundamental issue, however, that has not been 
adequately addressed by the process of law. It can be expressed as a 
simple question: How much unconstrained power do we want one single 
company to have? As the Enron debacle has demonstrated, this is not 
an idle question. Unrestrained corporate behavior can severely 
damage consumer rights. Microsoft has demonstrated that it can 
dominate the thinking of the PC Culture that it so zealously 
nourishes. It has an overwhelming influence over the press--;and 
therefore--;the opinions of an uncritical public. Within the 
information systems industry, Microsoft is acknowledged to have 
indisputable economic, political and cultural power. Comments by 
members of congress suggest this company also has a growing 
influence over the legislative process.
    Given its announced strategic plans, it should be obvious this 
company wants more. Much more. Microsoft wants to wield the same 
kind of influence over the entertainment and communication 
industries that it does over the computer industry. It currently has 
aggressive initiatives to dominate the services and content of the 
Internet and is pressing forward with plans that will Quotation 
from: ``MS settlement

[[Page 28144]]

reads like a fairy tale''. David Coursey, ZDNet, November 5, 
2001.
    effectively manage the access, distribution and use of networked 
consumer entertainment. Mobile and location technologies will be 
used to penetrate additional consumer services..Net will drive the 
consumer to Microsoft approved content and services. If these 
initiatives are successful, this single company will be in a 
position to dictate how we create, store, edit, access, distribute 
and use all kinds of electronic information. Worldwide. Across three 
industries.
    The reality of this situation raises a number of questions. 
Given its growing political and economic power, why do we believe 
that Microsoft will feel compelled to abide by the proposed 
settlement terms? Will they modify Microsoft's business strategy? 
Product plan? Will they prevent Microsoft from using integration, 
bundling and tying as weapons to lock out competitors in three 
industries?
    Will the proposed behavior monitoring process guarantee the 
delivery of reliable products? Improve consumer security? Prevent 
the abuse of corporate power? Ensure open markets? Encourage 
competitive innovation?
    It would appear that the answer to all of these questions is a 
resounding ``NO''. If that is true, then how can any 
reasonable person claim that the proposed settlement serves the 
public interest?
    Who Is The Consumer?
    Consumers have the right to expect that our federal institutions 
will deliver a settlement that has an immediate, substantial and 
permanent impact on the restoration of competition within the 
information systems industry.
    But, who is the consumer?
    Media and political personalities frequently project the image 
that all ``consumers'' are deficient, clueless and 
vulnerable. It is an image favored by self proclaimed consumer 
protection groups. Consumers are easily victimized and thus 
considered in need of protection. Hence in the Microsoft anti-trust 
case, both the Justice Department and the presiding Judge were 
concerned that the ``consumer'' had been victimized by 
excessive software prices and a lack of choice. This somewhat ill-
defined person had been forced to purchase Microsoft software 
through a captive retail channel and may have been overcharged.
    In reality, this image of the ``consumer'' is 
misleading. If we want to reach a settlement that protects both 
personal and institutional rights, we must first agree on a 
definition for the word ``consumer'' that incorporates all 
classes of buyers. For the purposes of this settlement agreement, 
therefore, we must consider two broad classifications of the concept 
``consumer''. There are personal consumers and there are 
Enterprise consumers.
    Personal consumers engage in personal consumption. This happens 
when people make purchases for themselves, their families, their 
friends or anyone (or thing) else that commands their interest. They 
use their own money. Typical purchases include food, clothing, 
housing, vehicles and so on. Personal consumption accounts for 
roughly two thirds of America's GDP. Enterprise consumers spend 
money that belongs to the Enterprise. They buy products, property or 
services for their employer or their business. Broadly defined, 
Enterprise consumers include any entity defined by the standard 
industrial classification codes: i.e. insurers, manufacturers, 
retailers, hospitals, educational institutions, government agencies, 
personal service businesses and so on. Enterprise consumption 
accounts for approximately one third of America's GDP. Both segments 
of America's consumer population must be protected from Microsoft's 
assertive marketing power. We must not leave either group of 
technology buyers in the position that they will be forced to chose 
key products and services from one vendor, good or not, on terms and 
prices they can not evade.
    One of the more glaring problems with the proposed Microsoft 
settlement is that while Federal and State authorities have properly 
reacted to personal consumer complaints, they have failed to deal in 
a meaningful way with the problems of the Enterprise consumer. 
Industry wide issues include:
    Enterprise networks have become incredibly expensive and 
difficult to maintain.
    Existing PC operating systems are hard to manage and very costly 
to own.
    Internet and Intranet security problems have become so bad that 
they threaten electronic commerce and the viability of Enterprise 
operations.
    There are multiple industry reports that address these issues in 
great detail. It is worthy to note that excessive information system 
costs have been calculated in the $ billions per year and that 
industry publications continue to report on the related management 
and operating problems. It is also clear that these impediments will 
continue to plague the Enterprise consumer because there is no 
effective competition for the architectural concepts promoted by the 
dominant vendor.
    In this legal action however, Microsoft's alleged disregard of 
consumer needs was never pursued. There appear to be several 
reasons: some political, some practical, and some due to the 
inherent obsolescence of the Sherman Antitrust Law. But the issues 
remain:
    If PC operating system development has been paralyzed by the 
domination of a single vendor, has the consumer been harmed? And if 
the products are defective, what is the burden of liability?
    If network systems design has been primarily driven by the 
product plan and business model of a single vendor, has the consumer 
been harmed? And if the underlying system design was dysfunctional, 
what is the burden of liability?
    If a vendor, in order to deflect competition, announces products 
that do not exist, or products that never make it to market, has the 
consumer been harmed? And if the consumer was mislead, at what point 
does this constitute consumer fraud? What is the associated 
liability?2
    If consumer security and safety have been jeopardized by 
deficient systems architecture and defective products, what is the 
vendor's liability?3
    The complaints against Microsoft are far more numerous than 
those covered by this narrowly defined legal action. If the court 
wishes to impose a meaningful settlement on Microsoft, it will have 
to consider both the concerns of this specific case and the 
underlying intent of the Sherman Act. There is case law and there is 
the reality of dealing with an overwhelming marketing machine that 
is essentially able to set its own agenda.
    This reality puts the court in a quandary. If the court is to be 
forthright in its desire to protect the consumer, it must provide 
substantial relief for both personal and Enterprise consumption. It 
will have to deal with both the specific and the ambiguous. It must 
certainly expand the interpretation of the Sherman Act. And finally, 
the court will have to make its findings with the knowledge that 
this settlement will have a bearing on future actions against AOL/
Time Warner.
    2 The announcement of non-existent products was an issue in the 
Justice Department's case against IBM. It puzzles me why Justice 
chose not to pursue this issue in its development of a case against 
Microsoft.
    3 The National Academy of Sciences has recommended the creation 
of laws that would establish vendor liability for security breaches 
that are the result of vulnerable software products.
    Microsoft The Company
    Microsoft's corporate culture is driven by the mantra of revenue 
growth, institutional power and market control. Software is 
developed to gain market share or to demolish competition. Software 
defects and chronic insecurity have been institutionalized as 
components of the product plan. Microsoft does not have to be driven 
by consumer wants and needs. Microsoft is free to be driven by 
whatever strategy protects its revenues and extends its power into 
additional markets. Microsoft has been able to adopt competitive 
software concepts within its Windows architecture, thereby rendering 
the competitive software irrelevant. Examples include the 
incorporation of the Internet Explorer browser into the Windows user 
interface in order to destroy Netscape's Navigator and the inclusion 
of ``Java like'' features in the company's .Net strategy, 
a ploy that will eventually render Java redundant within the Windows 
environment.
    When faced with standards based competition, Microsoft has 
frequently been accused of using an ``embrace, extend, 
extinguish'' strategy to render the standard useless. 
Microsoft's version may even flaunt the concept of ``open 
standard'' by restricting Windows clients from working with any 
platform other than a Windows server.
    Microsoft has convinced a wide range of technologists, 
journalists, legislators and consumers that it has the exclusive 
wisdom to provide software innovation.
    This--;of course--;is absolute nonsense. Microsoft is 
not the only company that understands the fundamentals of software 
technology. Were it not for the company's monopoly control over the 
market, consumers would be able to purchase a far superior PC 
operating system. Other vendors have developed, and are marketing, 
embedded operating systems with better

[[Page 28145]]

technology and excellent reliability. Enterprise users have embraced 
a variety of alternative server operating systems because they have 
superior reliability and a lower cost of ownership. There are 
certainly alternative ways to build consumer friendly Internet, e-
mail, word processing, spreadsheet, graphics and data base 
applications. And there are many companies that develop software for 
the cell phone, PDA, set top box, in-home server and game markets. 
Unfortunately, few alternatives can effectively compete against 
Microsoft's marketing power. This company continues to use 
integration as a predatory weapon. Competing products, services and 
content will be hobbled--;and thus less desirable.
    Management has a vision. Microsoft plans to dominate the 
computer game, cell phone and PDA/HPC (Personal Digital Assistant/
Handheld PC) markets, will force its way into the cable business and 
fully intends to be a leading provider of Internet services. These 
are key revenue growth strategies. The company's XP operating system 
is important because it drives Microsoft's largest revenue stream 
and the future of the company's .Net strategy. The Stinger cell 
phone and Pocket PC HPC OS launches open up new recurring mobile 
network revenue opportunities. The XBox game platform opens a 
strategic path to the convergence of entertainment and computing in 
the home. The company is actively tying its computer and 
communication software product strategy to its Internet services and 
content strategy. The Internet gives Microsoft a virtually unlimited 
marketplace that can be molded to the company's operating 
philosophy. Hailstorm and Passport fit perfectly into this scenario. 
Network clients using Microsoft software will be tightly integrated 
with Microsoft application and content servers.
    This is, after all, what convergence is all about.
    Unfortunately for the consumer, management's vision has a 
potential downside. Microsoft will be able to demand access to all 
of the software we use, modify it with or without our knowledge, and 
make copies of our files. This company will be in a position to 
monitor our use of the Internet, our political philosophy, our 
purchase behavior, and our friendships.
    Will Microsoft actually do this? Will a hacker be able to do the 
same thing? Does the consumer really want to be this vulnerable?
    We can understand that Microsoft's business model is driven by 
the visceral desire to absolutely dominate all high volume software 
applications. We can also understand that the company's prospects 
for revenue and profit growth are interdependent with the 
accumulation of power over the consumer's use of computing 
technology within the computer, communication and entertainment 
industries.
    It is time, however, to ask one simple question: Does this 
ubiquity serve the public interest? On the one hand we acknowledge 
Microsoft's accomplishments, the intensity of its vigorous pursuit 
of new markets and its right to function as an independent business. 
But on the other hand, the court must fashion a remedy that 
incorporates genuine protection for the consumer. The PC era was 
lots of fun. The Internet era was a wild ride. But going forward, 
Enterprise and personal consumers must have cost effective software 
that is reliable, predictable, useful, secure, easy to manage and 
open.
    Will a court imposed settlement provide the key?
    Alternative Remedies
    Nine States'', along with the District of Columbia, have 
presented an alternative proposal of remedy that would, if 
implemented, partially correct these deficiencies. This proposal has 
credibility because it directly addresses the findings of this 
specific case and establishes remedies that are consistent with 
prior court tests that judged the validity of relief from 
infractions of the Sherman Antitrust Law.
    1. Microsoft would have to offer a stripped version of Windows.
    Although much thought must go into the implementation 
methodology of this recommendation, it could have the effect of 
reducing consumer costs by encouraging the development of 
alternative personal computing appliances with competitive 
applications software. It would also have the effect of making it 
more difficult for Microsoft to exclude competition by tying its 
operating systems to its applications, content and services.
    2. Microsoft must support Java.
    Enterprise consumers have espoused Java as a highly useful 
programming language. Because it is an interpreted, object oriented, 
platform independent language, Java can be used to reduce the cost 
of developing, deploying and supporting networked applications. 
Despite the obvious benefits to the consumer, Microsoft wants to 
kill Java by making it irrelevant within a Microsoft controlled 
programming environment. Forcing Microsoft to give its full support 
to Java would give the Enterprise consumer and applications software 
developer incremental choice in the selection of development 
environments.
    3. Microsoft would be compelled to make Office available for all 
popular operating systems. Consumers have been forced to accept 
either Apple or Microsoft PC operating systems as a defacto 
prerequisite for using the company's Office suite. If Office were 
made available for all popular non-Microsoft operating systems, 
consumers would have a wider choice of operating system 
environments. In addition, this recommendation would encourage the 
development of competitive PC operating systems, presumably based on 
architectures that could deliver superior reliability, function and 
security.
    Given a carefully constructed court approved implementation and 
supervision methodology, these recommendations would be most helpful 
to the restoration of competition within the PC and network 
appliance software industries. However, if we want to preserve an 
open and competitive market, and if we want to be vigilant in our 
support of acceptable corporate behavior, then we should consider 
three additional recommendations.
    4. Restrict Microsoft from the Embedded Systems market.
    There are a number of reasons to restrict Microsoft's 
participation in the embedded systems market5. For the purposes of 
this specific settlement, however, we must focus our attention on 
the restoration of competition and innovation within the PC market. 
Going forward, we also need to ensure consumer choice in the markets 
for set top boxes, entertainment devices and communication 
appliances, as well as network based content and services. As 
discussed above, Microsoft's announced strategy is to tie its 
software products to its services and content businesses. If 
Microsoft is successful with these initiatives, this company will 
have greatly extended its marketing power and will be in a position 
to monopolize segments of the entertainment and communications 
industries.
    For a period of seven years, therefore, Microsoft should be 
prohibited from selling any embedded systems software products, 
including CE, its derivatives and any comparable products. If there 
is to be any credible competition for Microsoft's existing monopoly 
over PC operating system architectures, it is most likely to come 
from the manufacturers of network attached appliances. Over time, 
the embedded software within products will increase in 
sophistication. There is no reason why these system architectures 
can not be used to provide the consumer with the whole range of PC 
applications.
    Microsoft would be compelled to establish a separate company for 
its CE, Stinger, XBox, PocketPC, set top box and all other currently 
active embedded systems product efforts within 8 months of signing a 
settlement agreement. Microsoft would not be allowed to own any part 
of the company or its stock for a period of 7 years. Any funding for 
the newly spun-off company must come from sources in which Microsoft 
has no financial interest. Five years after the spin-off, Microsoft 
would be allowed to start a new embedded software development effort 
that could be offered for sale no sooner than seven years after 
signing the settlement agreement.
    Placing restrictions on Microsoft's embedded systems efforts 
will reduce the company's ability to dominate the related 
communication and entertainment markets. Microsoft would be 
encouraged to establish partnerships with the existing content and 
service companies as well as the manufacturers of embedded hardware 
and software products. These markets can then evolve in ways that 
are not tied to a single company's business strategy and revenue 
plan.
    5. Place Microsoft under Court Supervision
    It is difficult to imagine how the proposed settlement terms 
will prevent Microsoft from engaging in anti-competitive behavior. 
One would have to assume that Microsoft is immune from the 
temptations of corporate power. It would be helpful, therefore, if 
Microsoft were placed under the supervision of the court. A 
methodology must be developed that permits complaints of wrongdoing 
to be reviewed in a prompt and fair manner. Fines and restrictions, 
where necessary and justifiable, should be imposed by the court 
after a hearing process.
    5 A more detailed discussion of the basis for the 
recommendations and comments

[[Page 28146]]

presented in this document may be found in my book: 
``CyberCarnage: Everything We Own Is Obsolete''
    Court supervision should reduce the need for further Justice 
Department action and could be used to establish the parameters for 
pending civil actions. The intention is that Microsoft could engage 
in any permitted business practice, strategy and tactic it wished, 
so long as the court agrees that its actions are lawful. The period 
of supervision should be continued until the court, by its own 
determination, believes that supervision is no longer justified.
    6. Insist on a Code of Conduct
    If we assume that we do not want our larger corporations to be 
driven solely by the mantra of revenue and profit growth, then any 
company that achieves a dominate position within any single industry 
has an obligation to adjust its behavior to operate in the public 
interest. The usual mechanism is through the imposition of 
government regulation. Absent this solution, the alternative is to 
insist that the dominant company have a set of enforceable standards 
against which it is possible to judge individual employee conduct.
    Under court supervision, Microsoft should be compelled to adopt 
a Code of Conduct. Specific sections should address this company's 
relationship with competitors, suppliers, consumers, and partners. A 
methodology must be developed that permits complaints of wrongdoing 
to be reviewed in a prompt and fair manner. Fines and restrictions, 
where necessary and justifiable, should be imposed against 
individual employees.
    It would appear that these recommendations can be implemented in 
a fair and equitable manner. The objective is not to unduly punish 
Microsoft. The Third and Fourth Waves of computing are history. We 
must look forward, not backward. Punishment is less desirable than 
the creation of a competitive, needs driven, marketing environment 
for the consumer. It would appear that all six recommendations, if 
implemented as a whole, would have a minimal impact on Microsoft's 
existing revenues and profits. There would be little interference 
with the company's PC and server software business. Over the next 5 
to 7 years, the net effect is that Microsoft would not grow as fast 
and it would have to look to industry partners for some products 
compliment its .Net strategy.
    For the consumer, however, the restoration of competition within 
the PC industry will be enormously beneficial. New innovation can 
take the form of products that are easier to manage, more reliable, 
more secure, and less costly to own.
    The Sherman Antitrust Law
    As a piece of legislation, the Sherman Antitrust Law appears to 
be obsolete. The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 was designed to deal 
with the political and monopoly power of (frequently interlocking) 
trusts. Specific companies had pricing, availability, distribution 
and product power over the consumer. Relief came in the form 
specific restrictions to business practices and monetary punishment.
    The Sherman Antitrust Law does not address the defacto standards 
issue. Over the last 75 years, the telephone, teletype, electric, 
water, radio, entertainment, and television industries have been 
characterized by the evolution of increased concentration based on a 
company dominated list of defacto standards. Within the public 
services industries, regulation has been used to ensure that these 
standards are beneficial to the public interest. There are 
additional examples of industrial standards that have been promoted 
for the benefit of all potential players. When RCA set the defacto 
standards for color television, for example, multiple industry 
participants were able to adopt them for their individual benefit.
    Dominant players set the rules of competition and corporate 
existence. All industries are vulnerable. Airlines, banking, 
insurance, manufacturing, retailing--;it does not matter. The 
potential for domination--;whether by marketing power, financial 
strength, or technology--;exists.
    And if 21st century industries tend to gravitate toward single 
standards established by one dominant player, then we need to ask 
multiple questions:
    ?What is an open and competitive market?
    ?What is the basis for determining economic concentration?
    ?What is market domination?
    ?Should a company be allowed to use it's domination of one 
market to leverage its customer base into the domination of other 
markets?
    ? If the consumer is forced to purchase defective and/or 
dysfunctional products because there is no viable alternative, what 
is the dominant company's implied liability?
    ?What are consumer rights? (How can they be measured?)
    ?At what point does the power of the dominant player jeopardize 
consumer rights?
    ?What is a fair penalty for jeopardizing consumer rights?
    If a market is dominated by a single company, at what point does 
this imply that it must assume a fiduciary responsibility to act in 
the public interest? And what are the guidelines for corporate 
behavior? How will they be enforced?
    ?How much political and economic power do we want a single 
company to accumulate within a specific market?
    ?And finally; What is the mechanism for restructuring 
competition?
    Obviously, there are many more questions that need to be 
addressed if the Sherman Act is to be rendered relevant to the 
realities of 21st Century Corporations. The purpose of this more 
limited discussion, however, is to demonstrate the deficiencies of 
the Sherman Act when considering the specific parameters of this 
settlement. Neither the Sherman Act, nor the proposed settlement, 
address the realities of existing market structures, emerging 
technologies, defacto standards, the issues of convergence or the 
use of 21st century corporate power. Since the Sherman Act currently 
provides inadequate guidelines for establishing what will be--; 
essentially--;public policy, then the court has two choices:
    ? Interpret the law within the narrow confines of this case 
using legal precedent (which essentially will let Microsoft off the 
hook); or
    Broaden the interpretation of the Sherman Act in order to 
protect the consumer from further harm that may occur in the future 
(which will require the Court to consider issues and questions not 
necessarily documented within the scope of this case).
    Either way, the court's determination will be sent to the 
Supreme Court for resolution.
    Conclusion
    Since the proposed Justice Department settlement provides only 
limited relief for a very narrowly defined case, it will fail to 
provide the public policy guidelines that are so desperately needed 
to protect the consumer from the abuse of corporate authority. It 
does nothing to relieve the increasing concentration of political, 
economic and marketing power that is now occurring within the 
computer, communication and entertainment industries.
    We are thus faced with two realities. On the one hand there is 
the reality of the specifics of this case and the proposed 
settlement remedies. On the other hand, there is the reality of the 
need to maintain open and competitive markets for the products, 
services and content. A really good settlement will bridge these two 
realities.
    As for the Sherman Act? Corporate governance is out of control. 
Unfortunately, we all know that Congress will not act until it is 
politically expedient to do so. Failure to act implies acceptance of 
the status quo. Competition will fade. Corporate power and influence 
will be concentrated. More Enron's will happen. By the time congress 
acts, if at all, it may be too late to impose meaningful reform.
    So it is up to our court system, and perhaps the Commissions of 
the European Union, to both make and execute the guidelines we need 
to protect the consumer. We want our corporations, including 
Microsoft, to be successful. We expect them to grow their revenues 
and profits. We want them to pursue new business opportunities. But 
we also want them to operate within open and competitive markets so 
that consumers have an opportunity to purchase the products, 
services and content they want, at a price they can afford, and on 
terms that make them practical. That means that our legal system 
must guard against the potential abuse of corporate power and the 
inherent problems of market domination. In this settlement, we are 
asking the court to define those guidelines in a way that protects 
consumers from the potential of future abuse.
    Is that too large a task? Too sweeping a challenge? Too far from 
the specifics of this case? I think not. It is the reality of 21st 
century technology and market structures. Convergence, after all, 
implies consolidation. And consolidation breeds domination.



MTC-00027859

From: Bill Horne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the proposed DOJ settlement with Microsoft is 
wrong and will further eliminate lawful competition with this 
criminal corporation. Do please consider changing the settlement to 
help struggling Operating Systems developers as well a browzer 
developers.

[[Page 28147]]

    Bill Horne
    ``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.''--;Massachusetts Attorney General
    Thomas F. Reilly



MTC-00027860

From: Jack
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
2601 NE Jack London #14
Corvallis, OR 97330
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am sending this email to show my support for the settlement 
reached in the Microsoft antitrust case. The settlement should make 
it easier for other companies to work with Microsoft and its 
products. I find it weird that the suit was brought in the first 
place, since companies that wanted more business in this industry 
could get it by making their products better. I think innovation, by 
the whole technology industry including Microsoft, should be 
encouraged, not stifled.
    I work in the computer printer segment of the computer 
technology. Compatibility of our printers with popular software is 
important to our business. It could be of some considerable benefit 
to our partners, the computer industry, and us in general, that the 
settlement will allow us to have the open access to Microsoft's 
copyright software code for the internal interfaces of the widely 
used Windows programs.
    Industry standards are the lifeblood of peripheral products, 
such as our printers. Microsoft has greatly helped the industry by 
setting an affordable, easy to use standard that a wide range of 
people around the world have chosen to adopt out of the multitude of 
systems available.
    Other terms in the settlement, such as changes to Microsoft's 
ability to exercise its contract rights will help the industry, 
including Microsoft's rivals, such as AOL Time Warner. AOL will be 
able to work with computer manufacturers to remove Microsoft's 
Internet Explorer and Windows Messenger and replace them with AOL's 
own Netscape Navigator and AOL Internet Messenger, AIM. So, in terms 
of the American computer industry as a whole, the settlement's 
requirements of increased openness, flexibility and disclosure from 
Microsoft should lead to greater experimentation and innovation. 
Microsoft should benefit too, from the end of the distractions to 
its business focus and costs of litigation.
    The settlement is, in my opinion, in the public interest.
    Sincerely,
    Jack Kolb



MTC-00027861

From: Mark McGee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam:
    I am writing in support of the settlement agreement entered into 
by Microsoft, the Dept. of Justice, and nine states.
    It's best for everyone involved to proceed with the provisions 
agreed to and get on with business.
    Sincerely,
    Mark McGee
    Sammamish, WA



MTC-00027863

From: Guthrie Chamberlain
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft
    I am writing today to voice my opinion on the Microsoft 
Antitrust case. As an owner of a business that is part of the IT 
industry I feel this case has been dragging on for too long and it 
has hurt not only Microsoft, the entire IT industry and indeed the 
entire economy. The government has no rights meddling in the affairs 
of independent business unless it is truly hurting consumers through 
unfair practices. This is certainly not the case with Microsoft who 
has facilitated computing technology to benefit the majority of the 
world's population. Productivity and creativity has been stifled and 
it is now showing in the marketplace. Our economy has grown so much 
in the past two decades, due mainly to Microsoft and other key 
companies providing innovative products to the general consumer.
    I have firsthand experience dealing with Microsoft, as I work as 
a Systems Integrator, creating and installing networks. Their 
products have made our business and the majority of our clients run 
smoothly and more efficient. As Microsoft experienced problems due 
to these lawsuits, so have we and it has affected the entire 
economy. I feel part of the recession that we are now experiencing 
is due to these lawsuits. I ask that you please take the public's 
concern into consideration and help put an end to the lawsuits. 
Additionally, I hope that remaining nine states can come to quick 
settlements, without further scrutiny from the government.
    Sincerely,
    Guthrie Chamberlain
    President www.eagletgi.com
    [email protected]
    Phone: 740.373.9729 x101



MTC-00027864

From: Carol Hansell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:39am
Subject: Microsoft's campaign for comments
    FYI: ``Americans for Technology Leadership'' phoned 
our (small) office 3 times plus sent us a brochure in the mail 
soliciting comments in support of their position on the Microsoft 
case (that the November agreement be accepted as the final word). 
Only by carefully checking their web site does one find out that 
they are funded by Microsoft Corp. (a ``Founding 
Member''). Personally I do *not* support allowing predatory or 
anti-competitive business practices, and I think any comments 
submitted through ``Americans for Technology Leadership'' 
(there is a form to fill out on their web site) should be viewed in 
light of their being solicited by an intensive campaign funded by 
Microsoft Corp. (through a front organization) presenting the 
Microsoft position only in favorable terms.
    Thank you for your interest in fairness.
    Carol Hansell,
    Administrative Assistant
    Association of Boards of Certification
    208--;5th Street, Ames, IA 50010-;6259
    Phone (515) 232-;3623 / Fax (515) 232-;3778
    http://www.abccert.org



MTC-00027865

From: Adam Wunn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement is a bad idea. It allows Microsoft to just go 
about is business of squashing everyone else. Look at the areas they 
now control! They want more and they are now being rewarded with a 
slap on the hand. America needs Microsoft stopped from ruining 
competition in the computing landscape. Microsoft has proven 
duplicitous and has displayed their outright blatant lying nature 
over and over again.
    Save the taxpayer some money and do the job right this time, 
otherwise we will just revisit this in a few years. Microsoft has 
shown a propensity to skirt the rules or follow them long enough to 
make it pretty window dressing. Fix the problem, make they do the 
time for the crime.



MTC-00027866

From: psewell psewelll
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:40am
Subject: The way I see the Microsoft settlement
    Sir:
    How does one go about expressing their opinion, about something 
that there government said is in their best interest of there 
citizens of our wonderful USA.
    Here are my thoughts on this settlement concerning Microsoft 
Company , which I believe is the first true all American USA 
company..
    First allow me to say up front here, I started reading the court 
documents about the terms of the settlement and was very troubled by 
the findings and ground rules laid down for Microsoft. It reads like 
more money out of the public pockets and nothing to protect our best 
interest. in the software or computer world.
    I feel that the agreement isn't really in the consumers best 
interest nor is it in Microsoft's best interest, this is my opinion. 
The decree reads like a very confusing judgment. which. in the end I 
believe will put software & computers out of reach for the 
average everyday American citizen,
    Now mind you. I said average citizen, not those who are already 
at the bottom or top, of the food chain. [no disrespect meant there] 
Why do I say this. Because you have took a

[[Page 28148]]

company in the name of some folks greed and put a price tag on 
everything which has to do with technology , which, technology has 
no price tag, nor is mankind a third of the way ready for this 
wonderful new world of technology. I hope and pray you understand 
this statement. this could destroy generations of children now, and 
those to be born.
    I wonder in today's world, does any one really care about the 
citizens of our nation or humanity. Maybe the green god rules in 
total. Heaven help us. There will never be a standard set for 
software. that is the way I see it at this time from the decree 
being handed down..
    I have shelf's full of useless software which doesn't work on my 
computers. I purchase software & hardware from those who only 
seek profit, and no perfection in there software to work with any OS 
system. let the buyer be truly aware of what this will eventually 
lead to with software for the consumer.
    Or even Companies at there total own risk we will take your cash 
and bed... you the consumer. The internet will all but be destroyed 
by those who would benefit from it, in the name of greed and 
jealousy by a few. Who only have there interest at hand, so sorry 
but this is how I see it from the beginning of this to continued law 
suits against Microsoft. Allow me to state that I have no axe to 
grind with anyone nor do I work for Microsoft.
    I choose on my own to use Microsoft's products because their 
software was the only software that actually works for me being a 
lay person, and I didn't need a PhD to use Microsoft's software, 
they supported there software, with out charging outrageous fees to 
fix there product if something went wrong with there software, which 
was a rare thing for such a large software company. to take 
responsibly for there products... Nor did they tease me with there 
browser like Netscape did [my very first browser] offer me the bare 
bones files, in order for there browser to work I had to spend hard 
earn funds at that time to get it to work for me [ very complicated] 
to enjoy using what my and a lot of other folks tax dollars have 
already paid for, the Internet.
    I hope you understand what I am trying my best to get across to 
you here. I think this issue should be rethought and support 
Microsoft more then what it isn't doing now in my opinion, my sixty 
three years could be wrong , but I don't think so.
    This isn't a phone company or a light company, etc.. we cannot 
continue to destroy companies because someone thinks that they are 
to wealthy or that they want part of the action, the phone company 
is a good example.......this company Microsoft is part of the very 
back bone of our nation the new frontier of the twenty-first 
century. they are a American Global Company with major assets here 
in the mother land, supply jobs to the best and brightest of our 
youth to move forward in the 21st century...who sets good standards 
on how a company should treat those who work for them 
fairly........this is Wonderful.........this is something we can not 
destroy in the name of greed.....you know like when we first started 
out as a raw nation, an new frontier the west ...... in the earlier 
years. We can never revert back, even thought some of us think that 
is what it will take to get our house in order . it Takes honesty 
& compassion for mankind to put our house in order, if we are 
lucky as a nation.
    I would also like to suggest that we change some of those 
outdated Sherman act laws, they are a great guide to follow , but 
horrible to use against companies in today's world, those standards 
where for that time period in our history, we also need to remove a 
lot of business tax shelters and start making them pay there fair 
share, restore checks and balances, not when someone thinks a 
company are person is to large are to big. also, we need to allow 
those who build there own companies from there pockets not the tax 
payers pockets. a little more legal lead way. Sometimes we will need 
to allow a company to be a monopoly [ this is one of those 
instances] with guidance's. By those whom we tax payers, pay as our 
watch dogs to protect us an our country from being devoured. Does 
that make sense. No two babies are birth the same way, I had to 
throw that in, It must be said. No I do not own any stock in 
Microsoft.
    Thank you for allowing me to voice my opinions. God bless you 
and our Nation.
    PL Sewell
    http://www.sewellsports.com



MTC-00027867

From: Pindel, Dave
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 11:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
David L. Pindel
Instructor of Biology
Division of Biology and Chemistry
Corning Community College
1 Academic Drive
Corning, NY 14830
(607) 962-;9536
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the settlement 
agreement reached between Microsoft and the Justice Department in 
the antitrust litigation. Please do not forego the opportunity to 
settle this case now. The settlement provides benefits for the 
economy which can be taken advantage of now rather than taking the 
risk of litigation. The remedies awarded by a Court may not be as 
advantageous to the public.
    Microsoft has agreed to eliminate a number of alleged barriers 
to competition by adjusting its pricing policies, eliminating 
restrictions in its distribution contracts with third parties, and 
allowing competition from non-Microsoft software within Windows 
systems. These changes will help the computer industry as well as 
provide greater choice of products for consumers.
    Sincerely,
    David Pindel
    418 Sunset Drive #14A
    Coming, NY 14830


MTC-0002786/--;0002



MTC-00027868

From: Steven White
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Since today is the deadline for public comments, I thought I 
would add one parting shot to the email I sent some weeks ago and 
the hand-written note I sent yesterday by fax. I assume that a lot 
of people more knowledgeable than I have explained the details of 
why the settlement is too weak to stop Microsoft from stifling 
innovation (unless it's their own) and driving other companies out 
of business. I have seen pages of it in mainstream newspapers and 
computer publications, and I have gotten a clear explanation from my 
own state attorney general. You must have seen those also. Let me 
just make one non-technical point.
    Don't be swayed by the marketing-type arguments I hear. Some 
people say that this whole affair is just Microsoft competitors 
jealous of Microsoft's success and unable to compete with them, and 
looking to the government to help them. That is not correct. As the 
findings of fact told, the issue is that Microsoft will not LET 
other companies compete. Their way of ``competing'' is not 
to make a better product, it is to drive competitors out of 
business. That's why they have things like the contracts with 
computer makers that prohibit computer makers from even talking 
about competing products, let alone selling them. You might make a 
settlement that says to Microsoft, ``No, no no, you mustn't do 
that any more,'' but they will find a way around that. They 
might not make the contracts any more, but they will use subtle 
strong-arm tactics, or will find something that follows the letter 
of the law but not the intent of the settlement. There must be 
someting structural that forces them to behave, not just what 
amounts to a scolding.
    And also don't be fooled by the ``freedom to 
innovate'' arguments where Microsoft says that a settlement 
prevents them from ``innovating'' and puts the government 
into the software design business. That is not the point. The point 
is that Microsoft stops others from innovating and that is what 
prevents the computer industry from being all it can be. Microsoft's 
tactics starve other companies from the money they could use to 
offer better products. The BE-OS is a perfect example. Microsoft's 
contracts prevented BE-OS from being sold by computer makers. This 
deprived BE of money it could have used to improve its product so 
more people would want to buy it. BE went bankrupt.
    And finally don't be swayed by arguments that what is good for 
Microsoft is good for America. Bringing Microsoft to heel will not 
cripple the economy or have some catastrophic consequences.
    I have four computers at home and none of them run any Microsoft 
software. I have to struggle a bit with them, but I get by just 
fine. With more money going to other companies, it will get only 
better.
    Thank you.
    Steven White
    City of Bloomington
    2215 W Old Shakopee Rd
    Bloomington MN 55431-;3096

[[Page 28149]]

    USA
    952-;563-;4882 (voice)
    952-;563-;4672 (fax)
    [email protected]



MTC-00027869

From: Gary Enos
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I have watched the case against Microsoft and believe the 
actions to date to be an atrocity of justice. The actions taken 
against Microsoft have been of questionable substance and lacking a 
justified agenda. The negative affects on the technology sector and 
the de-valuation of one of America's greatest assets 
``Microsoft'' has been hard to justify.
    Microsoft has influenced the growth of the computer and compute 
environments more than any company in history. Many companies and 
manufacturers have benefited from the open development and utility 
of the Windows operating system and Microsoft certifications. The 
continued attack on Microsoft is un-productive and a challenge to 
the innovative spirit and freedom to grow that is typified by 
American business.
    The marketplace has demanded close integration of OS and 
functionality. Integration of form and function is not a wrong doing 
and Microsoft should be commended for all they have accomplished and 
brought to America's technical dominance. UNIX manufacturers have 
been imbedding programs in the OS for years; MacOS contains many 
imbedded functions. Microsoft has done nothing wrong and has acted 
responsibly to meet the needs of the market and the installed base 
of PC users/manufacturers. Microsoft is strong because they develop 
superior products in response to demand. They must be allowed to 
continue pushing the envelop and to have the freedom to innovate.
    The States which have failed to support the DOJ decision are 
wrong. It is wrong for AOL/Time Warner and Netscape to pursue or be 
permitted to pursue continued challenges against Microsoft. There is 
not value in the pursuit, only further devaluation of a great 
company and the harm to many investors and the technology industry 
as a whole.
    AOL and MSN both offer messaging. AOL, Compuserve, ATT and other 
services are offered as part of the Online services load of Windows 
98, ME, 2000 and XP systems. The users have complete freedom to 
select ISP, Browser, and email client. The fact that Explorer, 
Outlook express, and MSN are options to the OS load is perfectly 
acceptable. These are also superior applications.
    Please take action to prevent further legal challenge and wasted 
energy to defend Microsoft's freedom to innovate. The DOJ has 
decided; lets get on with re-building the US economy and re-
vitalizing the technology sector of this great country.
    Regards,
    Gary Enos
    6842 West Sherri Drive
    Macedonia, Ohio 44056



MTC-00027870

From: Roz Crowell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    For heavens sake, PLEASE, adopt the terms of the agreement with 
Microsoft and let the country get on with living and move this 
industry forward!!
    Thank you!
    Sincerely,
    Mrs. H. Crowell



MTC-00027871

From: Bryan Campbell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Bryan Campbell
[email protected]
28 January 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Suite 1200
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
    A Cornerstone Technology for the Twenty-First Century
    ``Home users who buy new PCs don't have much choice in 
operating systems. Once Windows XP ships, nearly all computers will 
be sold with it installed.'' ``When your six-month-old 
version of MusicMatch Jukebox doesn't work, you may decide just to 
live with WMP [Windows Media Player].'' The New Windows, PC 
Magazine 30 October 2001
    http://www.pcmag.com/article/
0,2997,s%253D1590%2526a%253D15591,00.asp
    This phase of the antitrust trial concerning Microsoft products 
is occurring at one of the most trying times in the history of the 
United States. The due deliberation given it (going on as does all 
business) says much about the resolve of the nation and its allies. 
Personal Computers are vital to the world economy which means even 
in this dire time the United States needs to ensure the vitality of 
the whole Personal Computer industry which is a mainstay for the 
engine of the world economy in this new century. Security is best 
served by having a strong economy that has the means to lift up the 
world into a new prosperity as was done after World War II.
    At question in this case is the unfettered access to the next 
generation of the common infrastructure. Microsoft Operating Systems 
have become the cornerstone for running a myriad of Personal 
Computers world-wide! These Operating Systems take a place beside 
raods and highways, electricity, and the telephone system, as 
infrastructure services that are fundamental to everyday life in 
modern society. Care must thus be observed with the newest Microsoft 
system, Windows, to see that it remains a platform any company or 
individual may build on and garner the full benefits of any 
innovation.
    1. The Revised Proposed Final Judgement gives Microsoft too much 
influence over how other developers can implement their programs. 
Section III.H allows OEM installs of non-Microsoft products. That 
clause is made too narrow by Section III.H.3.2, which states Windows 
may invoke a Microsoft product (Section III.H paragraph 2) if 
another product does not meet a ``reasonable technical 
requirement'' (ActiveX) consistent with Windows. Once it is in 
writing, ActiveX support will be a minimum for all programs to meet. 
That will be anti-competitive by requiring programs to be a 
proprietary Microsoft ActiveX control as a ``reasonable 
technical requirement'' to allow OEM installs when some 
software firms would prefer to use only Java. Studying constitutions 
and court decisions is part of my background and I have seen 
innocuous clauses gain unexpected importance.
    Section III.H.3.2 could be such a clause causing OEMs to leave 
Microsoft programs in place. That Microsoft has broad latitude to 
override OEM software choices makes this Judgement contrary to the 
public interest. Section III.C of the Judgment, indeed, seeks to 
leave open such options. Generally, as Microsoft does not give tech 
support to 0EM built systems, there is not a strong business reason 
for Microsoft to so closely govern the initial boot. Buyer recourse 
is to an OEM, which bears the costs of more technical support phone 
calls if it deploys a confusing initial boot or a confusing 
configuration. Microsoft costs do not raise due to some inept OEM 
ideas so OEMs can certainly be left to their own ideas on finalizing 
systems. OEMs carry the financial burden of manufacturing and 
selling what they build so OEMs need the freedom to install programs 
that make those systems most attractive to buyers. If an OEM markets 
PCs that misbehave, a Web or other review will quickly make that 
news and the market will react leading that OEM to fix its error 
without reflecting on Windows itself. Microsoft paternalism is 
unnecessary. Not to say that it can not protect the reputation of 
its product, only that in ensuring Windows works as expected 
Microsoft does not also stifle non-Microsoft programs because those 
developers choose to use their own vision on the Windows Operating 
System.
    1a. The revised settlement gives Microsoft far too much 
competitive advantage because Section III.H.3.1 and its preamble let 
the Windows Operating System select Microsoft programs to connect to 
a Microsoft server. That leaves the door wide open to Microsoft 
specifying, for example, only Internet Explorer may be used to 
update Windows so people wishing to use other browsers still need be 
familiar with Internet Explorer. People using the Lynx browser 
perhaps because of reduced vision or Opera's browser due to physical 
disability would have no way to visit Microsoft Web sites or to 
update Windows. This settlement may allow discrimination and or 
infringe upon the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and perhaps 
other codes if a secondary route is only left to people with 
disabilities. (Plus their Personal Computers are painstaking 
configured to allow independent operation which a central authority 
is unlikely to be able to clone no matter how strong its 
motivation!) From a wider perspective, this clause gives Microsoft 
too much latitude to disregard individual choice.
    Other vendors will be reluctant to write similar programs 
knowing reasonable earnings from the work is unlikely as possible 
customers will not use a program since Windows may by-pass it at 
critical

[[Page 28150]]

times when customers need be most familiar with their programs to 
ensure successful outcomes. Moreover, the Court of Appeals Ruling on 
page 30 (using the Adobe PDF rendering) notes having two browsers on 
systems is unpalatable to OEMs as some customers will phone the 
support line asking which browser to run. OEMs seek to limit such 
costly calls so OEMs will not configure systems with two similar 
programs to avoid customer confusion. Because OEMs carry the burden 
of product support they need to be able to configure systems to best 
suit the individual buying a system. Windows is a most adaptable 
Operating System allowing buyers to run Personal Computers in a 
personalized fashion, giving OEMs an option to begin the 
personalization process would be one way to make using a new 
Personal Computer easier. Conversely, if via Section III.H.3.1 
Windows ignores buyer chosen software to increase ease of use by 
using only one browser buyers will of necessity run Internet 
Explorer to be able to update Windows. Some violations the Court of 
Appeals upheld deal with promoting exclusive use of Internet 
Explorer, no part of any settlement should allow for any similar 
eventuality. Microsoft must be encouraged to quickly implement open 
standards so any browser can interact the same way with any server. 
The guiding goal should be the example of the telephone system which 
at one time only allowed equipment built by the phone company to be 
connected to the system. By the early 1980s, equipment built by any 
manufacturer was allowed to connect to the telephone system 
something that helped the greatly expanded types of telephone 
services available now. Plus at that time telephone companies 
stopped requiring that handsets be wired into the system by their 
employees as telephone sockets were fitted with jacks that allow 
easy connection of handsets. Having seen other technologies become 
much easier for customers to handle alone it would be most 
unfortunate to go backwards against that trend by letting Personal 
Computers appear to be devices that only a central authority can 
setup.
    Car dealers offer customers many options, although the supply 
chain for assembly is long with an involved manufacturing process. 
Since car dealers let customers pick items such as seat color 
likewise 0EMs can have options for Web players, browsers, and other 
preferred software components. (Dell Computer buyers custom 
configure hardware for new systems http://www.zdnet.com/anchordesk/
stories/story/0,10738,2834200,00.html fifth paragraph, doing the 
same with some Web ``plug-in'' software merely extends an 
existing concept.) Yes the finishing stages of Personal Computer 
assemble will change to yield widespread benefit as new systems have 
the newest versions of programs installed.
    Customers satisfaction should go up given less need to update 
new systems with the most recent versions of programs helping lower 
or hold steady OEMs costs by reducing phone calls to support on what 
to do when an update causes a malfunction. Microsoft benefits by 
having some updates done before customers receive systems. A 3 Dec 
2001 article at http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,48756,00.html 
shows a patch which closes many security holes in Microsoft Outlook 
is very seldom downloaded as a percentage of estimated Outlook 
users. And that a tiny test group had little success installing the 
patch. (Having run desktop systems for 23 years, I'm fully familiar 
with instructions for software I found those for the patch process 
involved. Not complex, just a process needing diligence to 
complete.) All software firms try to make updates easy, yet 
customers, especially the majority not interested in the technology 
itself, are fatigued by frequent updates. By having the Operating 
System supply fewer components (where they become outdated with 
unfortunate speed) OEMs will be able to relieve buyers of some extra 
setup chores, making them more immediately productive! For retail 
sales OEMs could provide CDs (which stores could also update) with 
new versions of programs.
    Returning to the comparison with the phone system where 
interoperability (meaning seamless operation between components from 
diverse manufactures) reigns supreme the idea that only Microsoft 
programs (besides when self-updating) be allowed to access Microsoft 
servers is as inefficient as calling the phone company for customer 
service merely to be told to call back on handset it built. Possible 
problems with other browsers using Microsoft servers probably stem 
from Microsoft placing proprietary functions in its own Internet 
Explorer browser (please see http://www.pcmag.com/article/
0,2997,s%253D1470%2526a%253D4804,00.asp) and then 
using those function on Microsoft servers. The public interest is 
only served by universal Web access as exemplified in continental 
telephone systems where those responsible for the system do not 
limit customer choice. lb. My 23 years of experience with desktop 
class computers (then called ``micros'') stems from my 
being a person who is physically disabled (having Cerebral Palsy 
entails lack of fine motor control, unsteady and shaky movements, 
and difficulty in moving). That familiarity with keyboards began in 
about 1961 with I began using a headwand to type on a typewriter. My 
first ``micro'' computer in 1978 enabled me to complete a 
Bachelor of Arts in History by 1982. Even a computer did not speed 
up my typing though (a photo at http://www.opera.com/press/guides/
operapower suggests how I work) so the whole Degree took seven years 
to finish, letting me to all the reading (and much more) related to 
the History, Political Economy, and Economics courses for the 
Degree. A background enabling me to place this case in a broader 
perspective than is often done, with the skill to look at all 
factors and sides before writing an analysis.
    Vital to note also is the wide power of software to do amazing 
things! It is software which transforms the diverse components 
within desktop computers into cohesive wholes able to a universe of 
tasks. If you do not want to, or cannot hold down two keys at once 
solutions abound! A two key command can be programmed on to one key 
or software`holds'' modifier keys like Shift on till 
another key is typed. Personal Computers adapt to the person. For 
browsing the first thing I did on purchasing Web access in 1995 was 
Search for a suitable browser and found NCSA Mosaic 2.1 highly 
usable.
    Please see http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/SDG/Software/mosaic-w/
releaseinfo/2.1/WBook--;60. html for its one key commands which 
were enough for keyboard Web navigation, at that time. By mid-1996 
the Web was more complex and Opera Software http://www.opera.com had 
a browser that has since filled the bill. Being able to find and run 
commercial software is huge a cost saving, too. On the Web site for 
the White House, ``Fulfilling America's Promise to 
Americans with Disabilities'' http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/
freedominitiative/freedominitiative.html says adaptive technology to 
make Personal Computers usable by people with a disability costs 
$2000 to $20,000 a system. In comparison Opera and this macro 
program (to program commands or often used phrases to run by typing 
one or two keys) http://www.macros.com together cost $65, showing 
that great software can reduce some expense of making computers 
usable by people with a disability. Such a large saving is rare, yet 
it illuminates the power of software.
    The malleable nature of software is the vital point as that 
versatility lower costs. Every program does not have to use the 
exact same approach to accomplish any task. Most programs even have 
a few ways to do any one task. Some macro programs carefully guide 
you through macro building, the one I run also does direct building 
which is less work for me. Neither approach is more correct, the 
best solution is the one most suited to the interest and skill level 
of the person performing the task. With Microsoft moving to place 
more full programs in the Operating System the best feature of 
software, its malleable nature, will be lost.
    We risk reaching a point where people only know how run a few 
programs by rote as they service the computer instead of computers 
serving the individual. In an enlightened age of reduced regulation 
it is very strange to see Microsoft regulating the Personal Computer 
industry. Because many clauses in the Proposed Judgement give 
Microsoft ways around prohibitions, especially Section III.H.3 using 
the word `notwithstanding'' (meaning despite stated 
limits Microsoft may have its way), it is no over statement to say 
Microsoft may now regulate its industry. With it being able to still 
influence many aspects of OEM systems customers will largely see 
Windows in the form Microsoft wants, placing it at the center of the 
Personal Computer letting Microsoft regulate industry affairs. When 
a monopoly impedes the free flow of products that is at odds with 
the nominal workings of a capitalist economy and its open markets.
    1c. Technology plays its best role in economic growth when it is 
deployed in a manner that does not favor or give special status to 
any party (which is separate from financial returns due product 
creators). Applying that concept to Operating Systems for Personal 
Computers is illuminating. DOS began in 1981 as a system with the 
bare essentials to run a computer, some might say so bare that it 
was like selling an engine with no spark plugs.

[[Page 28151]]

    Other vendors began selling software to perform such essential 
tasks. In 1991 Microsoft released DOS 5 which later with DOS 6 were 
the first more complete versions, (http://www.nukesoft.co.uk/msdos/
dosversions.htm) less requiring third party software to enable 
computer features of that day.
    Notable these implementations left room for improvement and 
customer choice. Although by 1993 the engine definitely included 
spark plugs demanding customers seeking their view of complete 
computing were free to buy software offering a full of range options 
in areas like memory-management from a number of vendors. What 
Microsoft added to DOS are functions virtually fundamental to the 
workings of an Operating System, yet there was no wide attempt to 
exclude other vendors from those markets. Windows 95 had improved 
memory-management so third party software for it all but vanished, 
which is natural because the Operating System should be able to 
handle a basic computer resource like memory itself.
    To understand the impact of combinations a careful review of 
whether another product brings a finishing touch to an Operating 
System does help. Optional utility software to check Operating 
System integrity and better memory-management refine the Operating 
System, increasing its ability to perform without incident. Those 
items represent more intensive development of what the Operating 
System is meant to do, make Personal Computers ready and able to run 
programs the owner needs. A built-in browser, media player or the 
like expands the Operating System without increasing the integrity 
of that software. Expansion adds to the Operating System without 
polishing it. When such tying occurs the Operating System can become 
more difficult to maintain, unlike the customer benefits derived 
from intensive development.
    Problems with an expanding Operating System are illustrated by 
the security holes Internet Explorer lends Windows. Two articles on 
http://www.extremetech.com/article/0,,s%3D25124&a%3D21033,00.asp 
explain matters. ``Microsoft Releases IE `Mega-
Patch''' notes that a combined patch now closes various 
Internet Explorer holes (one even lets someone take over your 
computer, details on http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/01/12/
13/011213hnbackdoor.xml). Yet it is not always clear the browser 
must be updated to version 5.5 before the patch will install, thus 
after download some people gave up. Brett Glass writes further in 
the article that stopping is bad, the patch is essential since 
Microsoft nearly always has Internet Explorer run, (to view email 
sent in the style Web pages) ``unbidden,'' even if 
computer ``owners'' act ``to make another browser the 
default''. That means owners using another browser must still 
maintain Internet Explorer because Microsoft expanded the Operating 
System to include its own product. That means just not using 
Internet Explorer does not avoid security problems in Windows. Extra 
software in the Operating System brings extra problems. This is a 
particular bad time for compromised security so it is unwise to make 
people work hard for security.
    Despite such hard work the second article, ``Internet 
Explorer Violates Basic Security Principles,'' on the above 
link says that how Javascript runs in Internet Explorer makes it 
vulnerable. Malevolent Web sites can ``hijack browsing 
sessions,'' steal items like credit card numbers from browser 
cookies or read sensitive information from files on computers. No 
patch existed when the article went to the Web on 10 Jan 2002. 
Disabling Javascript is the only way to seal the gap for now. And 
that makes the Web very difficult to use since many sites employ 
Javascript to exchange information with browsers and to have Web 
page pieces properly placed. An expanded Operating System makes it 
difficult for people to decide what browser best serves their 
interests because Internet Explorer asserts itself in Windows.
    And it seems silly, at first glance, to seek other programs when 
the Operating System maker provides software in a persistent manner 
to do things. That persistent hampers competitors from fulfilling 
the browser or other functions. Brett Glass notes that Internet 
Explorer at time runs despite efforts of computer owners to have 
Windows launch a non-Microsoft browser when a third program requests 
browser functions. Such behavior is anticompetitive because it will 
cause some users to surrender and use Microsoft products to get 
their jobs done instead of toiling to have Windows always use the 
browser they want. Usually Microsoft says bundling will not inhibit 
customer choice of software that does not seem to reflect real world 
experience. Worse than being anticompetitive is that people are led 
to using software which is not secure. Bringing the discipline of 
the market is the best way to let customers choose great and secure 
software uninfluenced by the first blush of tying.
    2. How Microsoft dominance and now monopoly in desktop class 
computer Operating Systems functions demonstrates surprising 
durability. A product primarily sold on new computers each edition 
of the Operating System has a fresh plateau to maintain its 
dominance. Not depending on static plants or structures to provide 
goods or services in a certain locality means this monopoly is 
unlikely to weaken due to age, obsolescence, or outside 
encroachment. Not having to finance and maintain fixed assets to 
manufacture tangible products means Microsoft is able to quickly 
apply resources to new challenges without the lag and expense of 
having to retool manufacturing plants to build new kinds of 
products. Which is not to say software development is instantaneous 
or that Microsoft has no costs only that the expenses are not 
structural, not binding it to one course for any time span. With 
little to hinder it Microsoft can quickly respond to meet emerging 
market trends making the monopoly durable.
    What sustains the Operating Systems monopoly is fascinating. 
Increasing yearly sales of systems licensed to run Microsoft 
Operating Systems created a huge installed base of systems with the 
hardware specification derived from the first IBM Personal Computer 
in 1981. About 100 million Windows client licenses (including 
corporate updates) now ship yearly, with declining computer prices 
making it more ``enticing'' to buy new systems than to try 
upgrading old ones http://www5.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/
0,4586,5100875,00.html. With Windows put on many new systems the 
monopoly is self-renewing as the equipment it runs on is continually 
updated. For entities running Windows there is not one large unit or 
factory to age and be replace by equipment from competitors at one 
moment in time. Interesting too, is that buyers of the Operating 
System pay for the equipment its runs on, relieving Microsoft of 
paying for equipment to maintain the monopoly. Low costs to 
Microsoft, with no decisive point in the product cycle to switch 
vendors due to continual buying means the Operating System monopoly 
is durable and long lasting.
    Development of this point stems from the Court of Appeals note 
that Joseph Schumpeter saw only temporary monopolies in technology. 
The ruling (page 12) cites Schumpeter's idea of product improvement 
causing many firms to dominant a market in sequence. A dynamic 
technology market would appear difficult to dominant for long, as 
another firm will improve the given item such that buyers flock to 
for a few years till a third firm replaces it and so on. That works 
when a given item has no dependances on it. If changing the one 
item, however, demands that other things must be changed too product 
improvement has difficulty unseating the first monopoly.
    Schumpeter's theory does not apply to Personal Computers 
Operating Systems because Schumpeter could not be expected to 
foresee the huge network effect in this arena. Producing a better 
Operating System in isolation will not enable buyers to adopt it. 
When Microsoft began with MS-DOS and early Windows it did not face a 
dominant rival ``with a massive an installed base and as vast 
an existing array of applications'' (Court of Appeals ruling 
page 23). Instead of being temporary deep support makes the Windows 
monopoly most resilient.
    2a. Remedies to antitrust activities need to reflect the 
strength of the Microsoft monopoly. It is very durable so the 
company is much, much more likely to be able to damage other firms 
than anything in a judgment disrupting it. Windows is as much a 
cornerstone of personal computing as are plumbing and electricity to 
a building. Buyers require Windows to be able to run the programs 
that form their daily activities and will purchase the Operating 
System in a basic or its present expanded form. Any discomfort 
experienced by Microsoft is a necessary of result of allowing the 
free market to again operate. Bumps in the new open market road are 
just the expected opposite reaction to benefits from antitrust 
activities. In specifying what Microsoft must not do its ability to 
employ its own interpretations of matters needs to be considered to 
achieve the desired result. The firm managed to sidestep the 1994 
Consent Decree http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f000/0047.htm (page 
nine, paragraph three) item that Microsoft not require notification 
of any New System line sold with no Microsoft Operating System. In a 
most innovative

[[Page 28152]]

fashion, Microsoft had a contest in early 2001 to have system 
builders inform Microsoft of systems shipped without Windows. 
Builder employees gained more valuable prizes for telling Microsoft 
of higher numbers of non-Windows system sales. Microsoft wanted to 
see that Enterprise licenses are not misunderstood as covering new 
systems, a necessary thing noted in, ``Microsoft offers PC 
builders prizes to be finks'' http://www.infoworld.com/
articles/hn/xml/01/05/02/010502hnsitelicense.xml
    Letters to Enterprise license holders could of accomplished the 
same result without garnering builder sales information which is 
private between seller and buyer! Instead, what Microsoft did went 
against the idea of the 1994 Decree with a method to gain details on 
builder sales by using a voluntary entry to contest which seems to 
get around the point Microsoft not require such information, except 
perhaps to dissuade clients running non-Microsoft server Operating 
Systems (``Be a Microsoft Stoolie, Win a Chair'' http://
news.cnet.com/news/
0-;1278-;210-;5816847-;1.html). Though it is 
unknown if Microsoft used information from the contest to influence 
software usage it is seen that Microsoft cuts close to prohibited 
actions in pursuing its goals, for this case all requirements must 
be exacting to prevent sidesteps. Nor can the anticompetitive 
ingredient of the contest be ignored as it clearly made known 
Microsoft's concern over systems selling without Windows. Because 
builders must be able to put Windows on desktop computers to retain 
buyers, system builders (particularly less known firms) could take 
pause and decide not to risk relations with Microsoft by selling 
relatively few (if more expensive) server systems without Windows. 
All system software and hardware suppliers can be replaced except 
for Microsoft because only it licenses Windows which brings together 
all the products from other suppliers into a cohesive unit that can 
be sold.
    Such complete dependence on a single supplier for the only 
product with no substitute would make builders wary of offending 
Microsoft since it is the only firm in the Personal Computer 
industry that can put other firms out of business by halting access 
to merely one product. The Court of Appeals ruling on page 16 says 
customers will not change Operating Systems due to the cost of new 
programs and training for them which is a burden while other 
Operating Systems offer fewer programs.
    Also, each hardware component requires a piece of software 
referred to as a ``driver'' to mediate communications 
between a component and the Operating System the 
``driver'' is written for. Component makers write Windows 
``drivers'' almost exclusively so system builders lack 
options for any simple substitution. Thus relations with Microsoft 
are a prime concern leading builders to stay attuned to what 
Microsoft wishes. Yes, another Operating System can be used, yet it 
demands a seldom seen deep commitment. Lack of ``drivers'' 
deters buyers from trying another Operating System on new computers, 
adding to why buyers stick to Windows despite frequently new 
purchases. Linux distributors do provide ``drivers'' with 
their Operating System, but these seldom drive all features on 
components making these ``drivers'' unattractive 
substitutes. Components makers over time have sold many items in 
their product category making it difficult for distributors of other 
Operating Systems to timely develop ``drivers'' to suit 
specific components. A tiny part of the remedy should prohibit 
Microsoft from in any way deterring or interfering with components 
makers possible writing ``drivers'' for other Operating 
Systems.
    3. Pricing is the one area where, at a glance, the Operating 
System monopoly is not readily discerned. The price is usually not 
high compared to other Personal Computer components so previously 
cost was not an issue. Point 2 of this submission notes Windows 
sales are now about 100 million unit a year. Over an approximate 
three year mainstream life of an Operating System total sales do 
perhaps yield a monopoly like profit. Especially as Microsoft has 
low fixed costs. A humble suggestion to the Court is to investigate 
the cost of producing software in a very high volume to discover how 
price per unit relates to production cost. Another item to account 
for is Microsoft having no direct enduser support costs when 
builders put Windows on systems. Not facing that cost could let a 
lower price yield unexpected returns.
    Annoyance, too, is a reason Microsoft has unremarkable prices. 
In software development ``the-state-of-the-art'' produces 
good programs which seldom run as well as common, everyday devices. 
The science, or art, of software is young so somewhat less 
reliability is reasonable. That means to sell many units a year 
prices cannot be maximized to the same extent, for example, as can 
prices for ad space in the sole newspaper for given area. Annoyances 
is even the name of a popular Web site http://www.annoyances.org for 
dealing with Windows so what have been moderate prices were a trade-
off to keep buyers. Of Windows 98 a prominent writer said one reason 
to spend the $90 is that 98 crashed less than Windows 95 http://
content.techweb.com/winmag/library/1998/0701/ana0001.htm
    4. Bundling is a pivotal matter here making understanding it 
important. Bundling is common to enhance the value of new kinds of 
products, movie rentals included with VCR purchases when that 
product was new to spur customer interest, a process now happening 
with DVD players, are fine examples of the more frequent kind of 
bundling. When Personal Computers first became fast enough to 
display usable graphics on monitors writers of programs to do charts 
and graphs arranged to have makers of the new, fast graphic boards 
for systems bundle those programs with new boards to increase sales 
of both products! All temporary arrangements to boast new product 
recognition.
    Similar to this Operating System and browser packaging, 
``AWeb-II 3.4 Packaged with Amiga OS3.9'' http://
browserwatch.internet.com/news/story/news-20001229-;1.html 
Amiga is a neat, niche computer and Operating System with some loyal 
supporters. Bundled with Amiga OS3.9 is the AWeb browser for buyers 
to try out as v3.4SE Special Edition has some features disabled so 
if folks wish to keep using it they need to buy a full version. 
Limited versions let prospective buyers try a product without 
damaging potential sales. Notable these test versions can be removed 
from systems if customers so wish. Probably the instances of 
Operating System and browser bundling presented at the original 
District Court hearing allowed the browser to be removed from the 
Operating System, as well. What Microsoft did in binding Internet 
Explorer to Windows was atypical since other programs can always be 
removed. Apple Computer could not create and tie the two products 
together, for instance, being under contract to Microsoft for its 
MacOS Internet Explorer to be the default browser on Apple systems.
    That the Internet Explorer experience can be duplicated on 
Apple's MacOS without placing that Microsoft browser in the Apple 
Operating System shows the browser is a product category, not 
Operating System plumbing like memory-management that wholly depends 
CPU and Operating System interaction. That the product category 
exists is illustrated by its functions. Unlike most computer 
programs a browser is meant to show on a local system information 
that is formatted into Web pages on remote computers. A browser 
would quickly become boring without a connection to the Web to 
provide fresh and new information. A browser is part newspaper, 
radio, and TV for computers that only really shines because of its 
outside connection while other programs deal what they create. 
Separating the browser from other software is that it does not 
create what it displays. Even most computer games create files to 
allow games to be resumed at a later time.
    Demonstrating a possible market for browser is difficult because 
once a firm with market power uses its builder distribution network 
to distribute its browser with no regard to cost by not charging for 
it buying a second browser seems odd. NetMechanic http://
www.netmechanic.com though, is a firm in business to make Web sites 
work in a variety of browsers, and different types of computers, 
demonstrating not everyone prefers the Web as presented by Windows 
through Internet Explorer. Tastes do change. One noted computer 
commentator recently wrote (20 Dec 2001) he now uses Opera's style 
of having a number of Web pages open within the browser's one window 
(called MDI), instead of one program for each Web pages as Internet 
Explorer does producing a ``blizzard'' of separate 
programs http://www.scotfinnie.com/newsletter/18.htm.
    If the playing field was more level, with no firm having market 
power using its very special access to computer distribution, there 
is reason to think buyers would seek browsers that suited their 
individual preference instead of just happening to use what ships 
with the computer. Equally important is that other types of 
computers do access the Web so a proprietary specification of how to 
interact with browsers is anticompetitive since it favors one type 
of computer. Microsoft's main focus is the Personal Computer, making 
it less interested

[[Page 28153]]

in the advancement of other computers to protect its principal area 
of business. That is natural for Microsoft to do, yet it is bad for 
customers as possible choice for computers will not have the options 
as the kind Microsoft caters to. An example is on http://
www5.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/0,5859,5101802,00.html noting 
that Microsoft's PDA named the Pocket PC does not support Apple's 
Mac computers. Not a big item, yet it is another way to make Windows 
look better. Microsoft is so fiercely competitive it should not be 
left to handle a cross-platform standard better formulated by an 
industrial association.
    (I must now apologize to the Court as time is now very short to 
finish the filing and I still type slowly so I need to work in point 
form, I hope you will excuse me.)
    These 4 columns note that open standards greatly reduce costs 
for buyer and much improve the number and quality of available 
choices. ``Standards can put you in control''
    http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/
0,14179,2837626,00.html
    Open Standards Vital, PC's Founding Fathers Say''
    http://www.extremetech.com/article/
0,3396,s%253D201%2526a%253D11568,00.asp,
    ``Why we should hail IBM's ode to open source--;the 
Purple Book''
    http://zdnet.com.com/2100-;1107-;503981.html and 
``Group builds onto wall of Web standards'' http://
news.com.com/2100-;1023-;802022.html. The W3C stands for 
Web open standards with interoperability between all software, 
Microsoft should be urged its lead.
    5. The most effective remedy to administer with most ease is 
that Microsoft only sell Windows with the basic plumbing to run 
computers for the 1st 30 months of a judgment. That will be called 
disruptive, yet it is the best way to remind everyone Windows is the 
means to let many companies run programs on Personal Computers, not 
just Microsoft, and not as 2nd class players. If that is not done 
Microsoft will have decreasing reason to accommodate other firms on 
Windows as those firms will not much add to Windows'' 
popularity. Plus that will encourage Microsoft to have enough 
Windows'' APIs so any browser runs all browser functions in 
Windows instead of the APIs being limited to Internet Explorer.
    During that 30 months programs now in Windows will sell at 
prices as determined from sources like the Web. After 30 months such 
programs and basic Windows most stay available for 10 years. And 
Microsoft may then sell 2 other Windows versions with prices 
reflecting having some extra programs in 1 version, and all extra 
programs in the 2nd version; as well as direct Microsoft support 
being of 1 contact for setup (only good if used in 1st 35 days after 
buying) that may go on for a time after the contact began, and a 2nd 
6 months starting from a later contact within 15 months of system 
purchase. Simple reason for Microsoft support is that it be 
responsible for any full programs put in with Windows, that is only 
creating a consequence for Microsoft's action which is fundamental 
to a well running market economy.
    5a. Judgment needs to last a long time so market can develop 
products and just get use to being fully open (so participants in 
markets related to Personal Computers have no reason to act in 
anticipation of its end).
    Allowing time for those notions to be entrenched so OEMs will 
react strongly to unusual demands instead of merely accepting them 
so Microsoft regains its position.
    That is a big concern given Microsoft's habit is to disparage 
what other firms make, ``Novell sues Microsoft over ad 
campaign'' http://news.com.com/
2100-;1001-;273775.html while a later review found the 
Novell progressing quite well, 17 Dec 2001 ``Not Just Another 
NOS--;NetWare 6 includes impressive Web tools, file and print 
services''
    http://www.eweek.com/article/
0,3658,s%253D708%2526a%253D20078,00.asp.
    Unfortunately such ads and the blocking of 3rd party browsers 
from some Microsoft Web sites occurred while Microsoft negotiated 
this Proposed judgment suggesting Microsoft may not be serious about 
this process. It was soon seen that the browsers dealt well with the 
Microsoft sites, ``MSN.com shuts out non-Microsoft 
browsers''
    http://news.com.com/2100-;1023-;274944.html, 
``Parts of MSN Still Off-Limits to Amaya, Opera Users''
    http://browserwatch.internet.com/news/stories2001/news-
20011101-;1.html,
    ``Microsoft backpedals on MSN browser block''
    http://news.com.com/2100-;1023-;274980.html. Perhaps 1 
remedy could have Microsoft mostly deal in the benefits of its own 
products in ads and not supposed flaws in what other firms produce, 
generally leaving buyers to decide what suits them best.
    5b. To give independent developers the opportunity to write a 
browser based on its code, Netscape Communications made its source 
code available through http://www.Mozilla.org. As a result the 
specification for Netscape style ``plug-ins,'' which add 
functions as helpers to browsers, is now commonly known. This 
specification allows any company developing a browser to run 
``plug-ins'' in its browser application.
    Because Microsoft now has such a wide lead in browser usage, its 
support of ``plug-ins'' in all its browsers is critical to 
such helpers being created both in ActiveX and ``plug-in'' 
style. To give market forces the chance to establish a market for 
browsers, Microsoft shall include ``plug-in'' support in 
all its browser for 12 years. That period will begin on the first 
day of the first month after Microsoft demonstrates restored 
internal ``plug-in'' support in all current (or future) 
browsers from by Microsoft, its subsidiaries or successors. Menu and 
other means that exist to modify program options in Windows could 
turn off ``plug-in'' support. If it becomes apparent 
``plug-ins'' fall out of common usage Microsoft may be 
allowed to end its support early.
    A 12-year time period is necessary since many Web sites are 
built to mainly support Internet Explorer and many Web designers 
will require time to become accustomed to using an open standard 
(likely from http://www.w3.org). Customers will also need to adapt 
and choose a Web browser that best meets their usage requirements, 
the usual way of choosing products. And the 12-year period 
approximately doubles the time Microsoft hindered usual market 
forces through special distribution requirements. Thus, 12 years is 
reasonable recompense to that market.
    Restored Microsoft ``plug-in'' support (dropped in 
August 2001 http://news.cnet.com/news/
0-;1005-;200-;6881773.html) is a fine part of a 
remedy as it reinvigorates the browser market without steering it in 
any direction. Requiring Microsoft to publish its source code for 
Internet Explorer would merely develop copies with strengths and 
weaknesses similar to the original. Leaving them dependent on 
Microsoft for core code development, not creating an open market. 
Browsers do not relate to the booting of computers so showing source 
code is currently unneeded. So long as a browser is not commingled 
in the Operating System it is just another program making for easy 
substitution. Both ActiveX and ``plug-ins'' have strengths 
and drawbacks with no clear winner. ActiveX deeply ties into 
Windows, which is troubling if security breaks down. Meanwhile, 
Microsoft has doubts about ``plug-ins.'' Such issues are 
exactly the type best left to customer choice.
    More importantly, ensured ``plug-in'' support only 
produces a level playing field since all browsers have good access 
to helper programs leaving it to market forces to determine what 
browsers succeed. This point is forward looking as it leaves the 
market open with minimal or no market distortion making it very much 
in the public interest.
    6. Varied point2: Using ActiveX on the Windows Update site does 
not exclude people from general access to the Web as the Court of 
Appeals ruled. The anticompetitive element is that only Microsoft 
knows how to have browsers run ActiveX meaning that users must 
maintain Internet Explorer to be- able to reach the Update site 
which is a crucial, must reach site for anyone running a Windows 
Operating System! Above this filing shows it is a long and somewhat 
difficult process to keep Internet Explorer current and secure. Also 
the Court of Appeals ruling (page 30-;1) says Microsoft twice 
acknowledged two browser icons can be confusing. Running two 
browsers would be confusing as well, the easiest course for most 
people is to only run Internet Explorer. It thus has a very distinct 
advantage over other browsers. Yet Microsoft must ensure the 
integrity of its products so of course it may have Windows invoke a 
single purpose client that would check and service only Microsoft 
software. Such a client would have limited, specialized usage likely 
only for connecting to Microsoft servers, it will not be anti-
competitive because it will not effect perceptions of programs from 
other vendors. That differs from the present wording of Section 
III.H.3.1 and its preamble which gives Microsoft programs special 
rights users could see as making it better than similar products 
from other vendors.
    6a. Relating to Microsoft Passport: If Microsoft wants customers 
to create a basic account (using an existing e-mail address)

[[Page 28154]]

before providing product assistance that account should only be for 
dealing with Microsoft, and not for dealing with other firms over 
the Web. Privacy and security concerns of individuals deem that each 
person be able to make their own decision on whether to create an 
account to deal with Microsoft alone or a process for giving out 
information to third parties. Having 2 kinds of accounts means 
Microsoft will not be able to unduly leverage the Operating System 
monopoly into the de facto identification and information dispersal 
process for the Web. That will also much decrease the possibility 
that newcomers to PCs would erroneously think only Microsoft 
provides software for this class of computers. A central repository 
for all personal information will be probably a target for thieves 
trying to steal credit card number to commit fraud and perhaps where 
malevolent forces will go for personal information in efforts to 
build false identities. Signing in to a creation like Microsoft 
Passport is not something to be done while people are trying to 
setup another product. It must be considered on its own drawbacks or 
merits, and then perhaps entered into.
    Thank you for this opportunity.
    Sincerely,
    Bryan Campbell



MTC-00027872

From: Bradley G Leonard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I, Bradley G. Leonard, am a U.S. citizen who disagrees with the 
proposed settlement. It is a bad idea.



MTC-00027873

From: Garrett Williams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I strongly encourage a fair and appropriate settlement 
concerning Microsoft and their anti-trust violations. The company in 
question has abused it's position and created an unfair market place 
to which they are the dominate player. In order to right this 
situation the government must truly punish Microsoft for their 
unethical behavior. This means creating opportunities for other 
companies that have suffered at the expense of Microsoft's business 
practices. Proposals such as the education solution only increases 
Microsoft's market share and shows that the current presidential 
administration is oblivious to the current problem. Microsoft is a 
monopoly and that is definitely not beneficial to the economy. In 
order to increase competition steps must be taken to thoroughly 
punish Microsoft and give businesses such as Apple Computer, Java, 
and a host of others a fair chance.
    Thank you,
    garrett williams



MTC-00027874

From: Violet L Hubbard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:44am
Subject: microsoft setlement
    AS A SENIOR CITIZEN, I FEEL THAT THE SETTLEMENT IS AS FAIR AS 
POSSIBLE. WE CONSUMERS NEED TO WIN ONE EVERY NOW AND THEN.
    W.H. HUBBARD,
    7700-;1 S. ARAGON BLVD.
    SUNRISE, FL. 33322



MTC-0027875

From: Rick Spiewak
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/28/02 11:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Rick Spiewak
37 Berkeley Rd.
Framingham, ma 01701
January 28, 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 time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over so that companies like 
Microsoft can get back into the business of innovating and creating 
better products for consumers, and not wasting valuable resources on 
litigation.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Rick Spiewak



MTC-00027876

From: Gary Hill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Support
Gary G. Hill
44024 Countryside Drive ? Lancaster, CA 93536
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As an elected member of the Antelope Valley Health Care District 
representing 450,000 people, I am writing this letter as in support 
of the settlement in the case against Microsoft. I believe that this 
whole suit was a waste of time and money. Only in America do we 
focus on tearing down success, and destroying a product line the 
works. There are choices out there, but none of them work as well as 
the Microsoft products.
    There are more pressing issues that are of concern to me in this 
country such as the energy crisis here in California. The state has 
lost $22 billion dollars resulting in consumers getting gauged. In 
addition, the price of gas has risen 20 cents per gallon, just in 
the last week. The Department of Justice should have taken a strong 
NO to the rash of oil company mergers this past decade; we can live 
without a home computer, but must have gasoline (real public transit 
has not arrived yet)
    Microsoft did not get off as easy, as its opponents would have 
people think. They agreed to terms beyond what was required in the 
suit. They also agreed to design future versions of Windows, 
starting with an interim release of XP, to provide a mechanism to 
make it easy for computer companies, consumers and software 
developers to promote non-Microsoft software within Windows. 
Microsoft seemed to be generous when settling the case. Let's end 
litigation now so that Microsoft can go back to work. We, the 
American people, need a company like Microsoft to stay strong, so 
they can continue to create innovative products, well paying jobs, 
and help strengthen the tech sector of the economy.
    Sincerely,
    Gary G. Hill
    (661) 723-;6035
    (661) 723-;6180--;Fax
    [email protected]
    Gary G. Hill
    Director of Finance
    City of Lancaster
    Lancaster Redevelopment Agency
    44933 No. Fern Avenue
    Lancaster, CA 93534
    (661) 723-;6035
    (661) 723-;6180--;Fax
    [email protected]



MTC-00027877

From: Bill Baker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:46am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Please settle this suit now and let Microsoft get on with its 
business.
    Thank you,
    Bill Baker
    2051 Morningside Drive
    Mount Dora, Florida 32757



MTC-00027878

From: Don Campbell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The current settlement of the Microsoft case is a travesty. 
Since becoming a monopoly, Microsoft has almost continuously ignored 
antitrust law against anticompetitive behavior. When caught and 
tried, they deny the obvious. After agreeing to cease the 
anticompetitive behavior they carry on as before.
    They have shown negligible effort at compliance and continue to 
operate against consumer interest and consumer choice. If anything, 
they have extended this approach beyond their traditional software 
market into other markets of Internet and media commerce.
    I do not think that a remedy which falls short of structurally 
modifying the company will work. Microsoft will go on as usual and 
destroy more companies. In so doing they will continue to chant the 
false mantra that they are ``innovating'' and being 
punished for that. They should be broken up, Windows code should be 
opened up to the competition and they should not be allowed to 
leverage their current monopoly into new ones.
    Don Campbell



MTC-00027879

From: Tom Skinner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft

[[Page 28155]]

US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The antitrust suit against Microsoft has been settled. This 
agreement was arrived at after extensive negotiations with a court-
appointed mediator. The whole process took three years, which I 
believe is long enough, if not too long. This settlement has 
profound implications for all software publishers, the rest of the 
IT industry, and consumers.
    New government regulations will be imposed on the IT sector. The 
proposed agreement requires major changes in how Microsoft develops 
and markets its products, while allowing competitors the possibility 
of suing the company if it does not comply with these new rules. The 
settlement is in the best interests of the state, the economy and 
our nation as a whole.
    The recession has had a devastating effect on budgets at both 
the state and federal levels. It is important to allow the IT 
industry the ability to concentrate solely on its business at hand. 
The original agreement reached by the Justice Department is 
beneficial to the industry and the economy at this point. The 
settlement needs to be agreed upon by all members of the federal 
government, permitting us to continue being a leader in the 
technological market at home and around the world.
    Sincerely,
    Tom Skinner
    6186 Mountain Vine Avenue
    Kannapolis, NC 28081
    CC:[email protected]@
inetgw



MTC-00027880

From: vv.mann (a) home
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:50am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
VIRGINIA V. MANN
3004 Normandy Place
Evanston, Illinois 60201
January 25, 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Anti-trust Division
US Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I was pleased to hear that the Department of Justice had settled 
its ridiculous suit against Microsoft.
    Clearly, this lawsuit was politically driven and using our 
government and our laws in this fashion was unfortunate from the 
beginning. I am relieved to see this dispute resolved, although 
believe it should never have been brought in the first place.
    Although Microsoft has agreed to the restrictions in this 
settlement, I believe it is unfortunate that our government has 
chosen to do anything less than completely dropping the case. 
Microsoft has done more to improve our efficient and effective 
communications than has any other company in history.
    They should be left alone to continue their fine work without 
further interference from our government. Sincerely,



MTC-0027881

From: VanderPyle, Nicholas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Whomever it may concern,
    My JOB is dependant on the hard work Microsoft has done to 
create products, support, and certifications!
    I depend on being able to go home to a computer that is similar 
to the one I use at work, being able to keep all my tasks and 
appointments with me on the road in my handheld computer, and using 
the internet in an easy and efficient method. Microsoft has jumped 
through hoops to make sure I can do all of that without learning 
several new operating systems, buying several browsers, and having 
compatibility problems with my handheld computer.
    Consider a world where your missile defenses are running on a 
LINUX computer whose core operating software is partially written by 
a 12year old in Russia... and it has a fatal bug! You can't exactly 
goto a single company and demand a fix overnight like you can 
Microsoft.
    Don't make a mistake by hurting the one company that has driven 
innovation as well as created and supported hundreds of thousands of 
jobs WORLDWIDE.
    Thank you for your time.
    Nicholas VanderPyle
    Boeing
    Fort Walton Beach, FL
    (850)302-;4553
    

    Please update your contact lists to reflect this email address!
    Do NOT use HSV.Boeing.com
    CC:Microsoft's Freedom To Innovate Network



MTC-00027882

From: Peter Hill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:51am
Subject: Dear Judge,
    Dear Judge,
    As a young person, I would like to see growing oppurtunities in 
computer choices in my future. Microsoft is a wonderful company 
staffed by wonderful people, but they are guilty of anti-competitive 
violations. They should be punished according to US laws. If this is 
accomplished, it will provide a better and more competive market for 
me to enter.
    Thank you,
    Peter Hill
    66 Hobson St.
    Boston, MA



MTC-00027883

From: Jane Quirk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:51am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    It seems to me that the Microsoft antitrust suit has gone on 
long enough and has been subject to some questionable decisions. 
Microsoft has been a leader in its field and that always brings a 
certain amount of envy. The settlement agreement seems to be fair 
and I feel Microsoft has agreed to put some checks and balances in 
place to avoid the possibility of conflict in the future.
    I am in favor of the terms of the settlement and hope you will 
consider an end to this expensive litigation and allow all parties 
to move on.
    Thank you,
    Jane Quirk



MTC-00027884

From: Caghan, Susan
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 11:51am Subject: Microsoft Settlement
http://www.primepro.com
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I believe that the antitrust suit against Microsoft has been 
detrimental both to the economy and to the IT community. This suit 
was an attempt by Microsoft competitors to use the legal system to 
manipulate a market for their own gain. It is time to let us in the 
technology industries get back to the work; to do our part in moving 
our economy forward.
    The antitrust suit has had a negative, trickle-down consequence, 
that if not stopped, will lead to spiraling business downturns both 
of companies that partner with Microsoft as well businesses that use 
Microsoft products. The settlement guidelines are tough and 
rigorous. It is time to finalize the settlement and let us get back 
to the work of revitalizing the economy and the IT industry.
    I urge that all action taking place at the federal level be 
stopped. Microsoft must be allowed to return to innovation.
    Sincerely,
    Susan Caghan
    President



MTC-0027885

From: Marmelstein Robert E LtCol AFRL/IFSE
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 11:52am
Subject: Re'' Microsoft Settlement
    See atch.
    Robert E. Marmelstein
    Robert Marmelstein
    67 Whitford Ave.
    Whitesboro, NY 13492
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I have been following this case, and don't believe litigation 
was necessary at all. The computer industry is very competitive. I 
believe the competition pursued litigation in order to distract 
Microsoft and level the ``playing field''. Now that 
several more states and companies want to pursue further litigation, 
what are they trying to accomplish?
    Microsoft has been more than fair in settling this case. They 
agreed to license its operating system to the twenty largest 
computer companies for identical conditions and prices. They also 
agreed to design all

[[Page 28156]]

future versions of Windows, to provide a mechanism to make it easier 
for computer companies, consumers and software developers to promote 
non-Microsoft software within Windows.
    Let's end the distraction and go back to business. Microsoft can 
go back to reviving its company and the technical sector. Government 
can work on bringing us out of this recession.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Marmelstein



MTC-00027887

From: RandyRotter (MSN)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This whole jihad against Microsoft by varied government 
officials at the behest of Microsoft's competitors has been ill 
advised, corrupt and unproductive. It has harmed the company, harmed 
our international leadership in technology, harmed how young people 
view a career in technology, harmed the consumer with legal fees 
added to product cost, and introduced the attempt to have technical 
elegance determined by states'' attorney generals.
    Do not let the zealots and the cynics determine the fate of 
Microsoft's ability to delivery complex solutions. Look at the 
strides being made in China with wireless and you will see what can 
happen quickly if we weaken our own ability to provide large scale 
solutions. I am old enough to have learned to drive in a beautiful 
1960 Buick convertible. Within a few years I watched the automobile 
industry's abilty to product a decent car greatly decline relative 
to our competitors and saw the takeover of our main industrial 
hallmark by foriegn companies. We have had to wait for Microsoft to 
create an American world competitive flagship company to again 
provide the ability to command domestic and world markets.
    Because this case is about the fragility of intellectual 
property, the old rules do not always apply and should not be 
allowed to push an American success story into mediocrity.
    Randall Rotter
    9013 Nisqually Way NE
    Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
    (206) 855-;9625



MTC-00027888

From: Edward Goodrich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:52am
Subject: Microft Settelment
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I understand that the Department of Justice is presently 
accepting public comment on its agreement with Microsoft to settle 
the antitrust litigation. I wholeheartedly support the agreement. 
Microsoft was just being punished by the last administration for its 
success, and that's not fair. Microsoft's competitors complained 
that they were frozen out of competition by Microsoft's licensing 
and pricing practices as well as by their inability to offer 
competing software within the Windows system.
    Microsoft has agreed to uniform pricing guidelines as well as 
less restrictive licensing agreements with distributors. Microsoft 
has also agreed to open its operating systems to competing software 
applications.
    I believe that Microsoft's actions more than adequately answer 
the complaints, and Microsoft should be allowed to get back to 
business. Please implement the settlement as soon as the law allows. 
Thank you for your consideration and attention.
    Sincerely,
    Edward Goodrich



MTC-00027889

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:50am
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,
    Ken Lindsay
    6272 209th. rd.
    Live Oak,, FL 32060



MTC-00027890

From: Doug Grinbergs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    With respect to the proposed Microsoft settlement, I would like 
to offer these brief comments:
    To the great disadvantage of its customers, as well as users and 
manufacturers of competing systems, I believe that it would 
effectively leave the monopoly intact; well-funded, highly-paid, 
highly-motivated Microsoft lawyers will easily avoid the vague 
settlement rules and the giant will continue largely unchecked. 
Public meetings are essential to a democratic process and there 
should be public hearings nationwide to afford citizens the 
opportunity to speak out on this important matter.
    Doug Grinbergs
    [email protected]
    PO Box 17455
    Boulder, CO 80308 USA



MTC-00027891

From: Mitch Stone
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wish to register my strenuous objections to the proposed 
settlement to the Microsoft Antitrust case.
    Of all the provisions which I find most objectionable are those 
related to so-called ``middleware.'' The proposed 
settlement provides Microsoft with more control over software to be 
included with Windows then they have today. If the settlement is 
approved, they will be permitted to discriminate in ways which 
before the settlement would almost certainly generate antitrust 
scrutiny. This proposed settlement does not open the door to 
middleware development, it slams it shut.
    This settlement does not promote competition; it 
institutionalizes the Microsoft monopoly. To approve it would not be 
in the public interest.
    Mitch Stone
    [email protected]



MTC-00027892

From: Thomas Hahn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    I would like to add my voice to those who feel that this is a 
just settlement and should go forward without further delay. Thanks.
    Thomas Hahn



MTC-00027893

From: Bob Frazier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:55am
Subject: Microsoft / AOL Settlement
    Sir;
    I am completely in agreement with the DoJ settlement worked out 
between Microsoft and AOL. It satisfies the ruling of the Court of 
Appeals and represents the best opportunity for this industry to 
move ahead.
    Sincerely,
    Robert D. Frazier
    19 Applewood Lane
    Temple, NH 03084



MTC-00027894

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam:
    I just wanted to comment on the Microsoft matter with respect to 
``pending'' matters in the courts. I feel as a consumer 
that Microsoft has been a strong American company and has helped to 
``standardize'' the disparate software in the PC industry 
over the last 10 years. Competitors such as AOL (who BTW appear one 
again to be against ``standardization'' ) are not happy 
with a ``large systems integrator'' concept, which by 
default in the software industry goes to the Most Aggressive Company 
..in this case Microsoft. Most Microsoft products I purchase are 
``fairly priced''. In fact SUN's compilers and tools were 
once ``way more expensive'' than Microsoft products, but 
thanks to the ``Microsoft Trial'' their SUN product line 
``price'' has improved ``considerably'' for 
consumers. Microsofts'' has always been in the $100-;500 
range...I was mystified as to why ``consumers were

[[Page 28157]]

hurt'' as SUN claimed. (they were probably jealous of volume)
    However aggressive Microsoft has been, it HAS helped to achieve 
standardization, which the PC industry needed to ``get off the 
ground'' and bring ``mass market'' consumer awareness 
to many things, PC desktop, Common Operating Environment, Office 
tools, etc all of which operate ``together'' with a 
forward vision that DOES include many growth opportunities for 
smaller competitors. I know of many small vendors who 
``need'' standardization that Microsoft provides as a 
``defacto large systems integrator'' for consumers. AOL, 
who makes only a Browser (purchased for $10B from Netscape) and its 
AOL instant messenger are only TWO products. This is not enough to 
``standardize an industry'' and consumers like myself (who 
are also software developers) are aware of this and keep Microsoft 
in the ``lead role'' by spending our consumer dollars for 
``better integration''...what in fact comsumers vote for 
with their $$$.
    When AOL makes products that ``hit all bases'' as far 
as ``developers need'' I'll buy more AOL products...right 
now they have a limited product line...who's fault is that????? If 
$10Billion were spent in the right place it may not have happen as 
it did.
    If they (AOL) want to be a ``large systems 
integrator'' in ``consumers minds'' they they should 
compete by trying to ``bring together'' lots of smaller 
companies as Microsoft has done well as a platform and help 
consumers ``see this'' instead of just complaining and 
trying to do this ``via other means''...thinking the 
browser is the ``only thing'' that consumers 
``see'' ...in fact alot more goes on in terms of data, 
binaries and libraries that make an ``integrated product'' 
which microsoft has been far ``better at doing'' than AOL 
and their ``vision''. end of comments.
    +vfg
    Vince F. Golubic
    Software Developer & Consumer
    Allen, Texas
    CC:[email protected]@in
etgw



MTC-00027895

From: James E. Strang
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:58am
Subject: Letter
    Please see attached letter regarding Microsoft.
    James E. Strang
    Campbell Company
    (p): (206)763-;5000
    (f): (206) 763-;6700
    e-mail: [email protected]
    CC: 
[email protected]@
inetgw
575 S Michigan Street
Seattle, WA 98108
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing in full support of the recent settlement between 
Microsoft and the US Department of Justice. It is time that this 
foolishness comes to a prompt end. More than enough time has been 
used to cover all of the bases and I feel that it is just a 
political standoff at this point.
    The terms of the settlement make apparent to me the intense 
lobbying efforts of Microsoft's competition as they will be granted 
new rights to configure Windows so that non-Microsoft products can 
be promoted more easily and also be given interfaces that are 
internal to Windows'' operating system products.
    Even though these concessions do not actually protect consumers 
and just help Microsoft's competitors that were unable to be 
innovative on their own, I urge your office to finalize the 
settlement. It is in the best interests of our economy, IT sector, 
and public for the case to end and our country to move on. Thank 
you.
    Sincerely,
    John Odonnell



MTC-00027896

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:56am
Subject: MicroSoft Settlement
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002, 09:55
    Sirs:
    Regarding the MicroSoft Settlement ``Proposed Final 
Judgment'', I am in extreme opposition.
    I am in complete agreement with the amendments proposed by Dan 
Kegel (ref: www.kegel.com/remedy) in his essay to be submitted to 
the DOJ, entitled ``On the Proposed Final Judgement in the 
United States vs Microsoft''.
    It has been my professional observation over the last 20 years 
that Microsoft provided useful innovative products SOLELY when there 
was string and significant competition.
    It is my strong belief that should the PFJ be approved, the 
result will be an extraordinary loss of innovation in commercially 
available software within the United States; a significant erosion 
of respect for the US laws and regulations thus established, mainly 
among commercial and independent software developers in other 
nations less tolerant of large corporate monopolies; and a 
significant increase in litigation in the Federal courts to 
challenge the consequences of the PFJ.
    NB: this note represents ONLY my PERSONAL OPINION, and should 
not be construed as representing any official position of Storage 
Technology Corporation.
    Jeff Hayas
    Senior SW Engineer, Storage Technology Corporation
    Email: jeff--;[email protected]
    Phone: 303-;661-;8691 (w), 303-;938-;8933 
(h)
    Postal: POB 1378; Boulder CO 80306-;1378
    Proverb: ``Be well, stay in touch, and do good work.''

MTP-;00027897

From: 
[email protected]@ine
tgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:53am
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,
    Curtis Stauffer
    1600 Univ. Dr. E.
    College Station, TX 77840



MTC-00027898

From: Anthony, Kelly K.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am wriing in support of the proposed settlement agreement with 
Microsoft that would provide technology funds, computers and 
software to schools in low-income communities.
    Wisconsin schools would benefit from the technology funds. Our 
state falls below the national average in the percentage of fourth 
through eighth grade students in schools that have computers 
available in all classrooms. As a future teacher, I am learning 
about teh benefits of technology in the classroom.
    However, many schools do not have the funds or equipment to give 
the students these experiences. I think teachers and students should 
be given the opportunities technolgy can give.
    Computers are important educational tools in schools. No student 
or teacher should be denied this opportunity. THe proposed 
Settlement is very positive and would benefit students, teachers, 
schools, and communities that need the technology funding most.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Kelly Anthony



MTC-00027899

From: Steve Anderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:57am
Subject: The proposed settlement in the Microsoft antitrust case 
does not go far enough
    Dear Sirs,
    The only way to level the playing field after the years of abuse 
by Microsoft is to let the competition have access to the source 
code.
    Microsoft should be compelled to make available a license to any 
interested party for the source code for all versions of Windows(R) 
for a reasonable fee, perhaps $1,000,000.
    Thank you.
    Steve Anderson
    Phone 480-;315-;8577

[[Page 28158]]

    FAX 508-;300-;0337
    [email protected]
    www.eosgroup.com



MTC-00027900

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:59am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
205 Sweetwater Trace
Roswell, Georgia 30076
January 12, 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. I feel this debate has gone on long enough, 
and I feel after three years of litigation enough resources and time 
have been wasted on this issue. It is time to focus our attention on 
more pressing concerns facing us today.
    I am a believer in free enterprise, and I do not think Microsoft 
should be penalized for doing its job well. That is the goal of 
every American worker. This settlement finally ends three years of 
litigation and will allow Microsoft to continue designing and 
marketing their innovative software, while no longer focusing on 
litigation. This settlement was reached after extensive 
negotiations, and Microsoft has agreed to terms that extend well 
beyond the original terms of the lawsuit, just for the sake of 
ending it. For example, Microsoft will now be required to share 
information regarding the nature of the internal workings of its 
Windows operating system, allowing them to place their programs on 
it. Personally I consider this akin to charging the consumer for e-
mails because the post office is losing money...paying a competitor 
because they aren't smart enough to compete.
    During these difficult times, one of our highest priorities 
should be to stimulate our businesses so as to strengthen our 
lagging economy. Please support this settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Victoria Barkan



MTC-00027901

From: Gordon Slipko Sr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:00pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I as an american can not beleive that you keep harassing a 
company that has changed America for the better. It hasn't hurt 
anyone, but today in our justice system we allow everyone to sue 
everyone. Its all about money money mnoey, 1st it was one lawsuit, 
then another,now everyone wants to get in on the pie,because they 
know microsoft has the money and until they get their hands on it 
this will just keep continuing. LETS GET ON WITH OUR OTHER PROBLEMS 
IN THE WORLD TODAY AND LEAVE MICROSOFT ALONE. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. 
THANK YOU ROSE MARIE SLIPKO thank u and please confirm this email, 
have a nice day gordon



MTC-00027902

From: Les Dunaway
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:00pm
Subject: Microsoft
    I have been in the business since 1964. I saw the creation of 
Microsoft and have seen their business practices over the years. 
Microsoft exists only because of their dishonest and immoral 
business practices. They have never produced even on product that 
could have succeded in an open market.
    Les Dunaway



MTC-00027903

From: jane wellens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a shareholder of Msft stock and think this is time to put 
an end to the trials and settle this at once so we can all get back 
to business. This is very disruptive to the business climate that is 
dealing with a whole new set of issues themselves since 9/11. Jane 
WellensGet more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://
explorer.msn.com



MTC-00027904

From: Alonzo Gariepy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:00pm
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. An important point to be made regarding the large amount of 
comment that you have received regarding this case is that the many 
points made must be taken very seriously, although some are not as 
well presented in these emails as they might be with more time or by 
other people. I doubt that any quick resolution to this case will do 
justice to the many issues raised; the answers are not obvious and 
the exact solutions are not necessarily ones that have been 
considered by the DOJ up to this point.
    Microsoft continues to roll over software companies by 
incorporating into Windows features that have been developed by 
other companies as their main product. One continually comes back to 
this issue of what Microsoft should be allowed to make part of its 
Windows product. What is needed is some philosophical (and 
eventually legal) foundation for the consideration of this issue. 
Despite work on such products as Wine (a linux Windows emulator) 
Microsoft has a defacto monopoly. Ironically, the hardware involved 
is one of the most diversely manufactured devices in history. One of 
the reasons this continues to be so is that Microsoft puts a huge 
amount of work into making sure that Windows will run on all the 
different PCs that are manufactured with their huge diversity of 
devices, and Microsoft includes a great number of drivers for all 
these devices.
    Regardless of whether one can ever forsee an alternative to 
Windows, the problem is that every time Microsoft adds a feature to 
Windows, that feature becomes part of its monopoly. The marginal 
cost for the consumer is perceived as zero, and the originator of 
the feature in some other company can no longer compete. A perhaps 
too simple example is that the latest Windows OS supports ZIP files 
as virtual folders, saving users from having to acquire another 
piece of software to open ZIP files.
    Many such pieces of software are free or shareware, but 
shareware is a valid marketing model and its developers deserving of 
protection as anyone else. The greatest example of this would 
probably be Netscape.
    Perhaps what is needed is some kind of patent protection. Once 
someone else has made an add-on for Windows to perform a certain 
task, Microsoft (and perhaps others) cannot add that feature to 
Windows without paying some kind of royalty. Nothing else strikes me 
as a reasonable long term solution to this problem. As an 
experienced software developer, I don't generally believe in the 
concept of patenting software, but in this particular case, it 
appears an ideal solution.
    Sincerely,
    Alonzo Gariepy
    (ex microsoft software developer)
    [email protected]



MTC-00027905

From: Shu Jan Lin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Shu-Jan Grace Lin
204 Christopher Lane
Ithaca, NY 14850-;1715
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to support the recent settlement between the US 
Department of Justice and Microsoft. I think the lawsuit has gone on 
for way too long now and is becoming a waste of taxpayer dollars. 
The government interferes with free enterprise too much and should 
start facilitating business instead of hindering it.
    I care about what is fair for the public and I think that 
although very harsh, the settlement is in the best interests of the 
public. Microsoft will make some concessions that include disclosing 
interfaces internal to Windows'' operating system products, 
granting computer makers broad new rights to configure Windows, and 
forming three-person team to monitor settlement compliance.
    I hope that your office does what is best for the American 
public, not what is best for politicians, lawmakers, or big business 
that can't win in the market. Please make the right choice and 
finalize this settlement. Thank you.
    Sincerely,



MTC-00027906

From: Thomas Winzig
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The problem with the Microsoft settlement is that it leaves them 
intact. If you want to really open up the computer industry to 
newcomers, and punish Microsoft for their illegal activities, you 
should break them up into five or more groups. An operating

[[Page 28159]]

system company; an applications company; an internet services 
company; a hardware company; a gaming/entertainment company. If you 
are not willing or able to do that, then consider the following:
    FAIR OEM CONTRACTS
    Force Microsoft's OEM licensing deals to be fair. They killed 
Be, Inc. and many other companies that offer choices to consumers 
with these OEM deals. Specifically, Be was unable to deliver it's 
well-regarded OS via new PC's, because the OEM's would not (could 
not) bundle it on their new PC's, due to Microsoft's contracts. Be 
even offered to give their OS to OEM's for FREE to try and break 
into the market. Only Hitachi risked the wrath of Microsoft, and 
even then, they were not able to show the installation of BeOS to 
the end-user (due to Microsoft's license restrictions).
    Microsoft should be forced to come up with a fair contract for 
an OEM which does not provide a BARRIER TO ENTRY for other OS 
companies, and which is the same for all OEM's.
    DISTRIBUTE (BUT NOT NECESSARILY ``OPEN'') WINDOWS 
SOURCE CODE
    Force Microsoft to sell their operating systems with the source 
code. I'm not talking about Open Sourcing their OS--;just 
provide the source code with the copy of Windows that was purchased. 
The source code license would restrict distributing the source code, 
but would NOT restrict developers and consumers from being able to 
create applications that integrate with Windows just as well as 
Microsoft's applications. It would also allow developers and 
consumers to do things like: create patches to remove MSIE entirely; 
find and fix bugs in security before Microsoft can, etc. But the 
primary purpose is to allow third parties to be able to develop 
competing applications that integrate well with Windows.
    COMPLETELY DETAIL ALL MS OFFICE DOCUMENT FORMATS
    Force Microsoft to release the full documentation and all 
related source code for their Office document formats. Microsoft has 
used the full force of its monopoly to get people hooked on Office 
products. Now that Office has a monopoly on the production suite 
market, the barrier to entry is maintained because new office suites 
cannot adequately read/write the MS Office documents. If the full 
documentation and source code for those document formats was 
released (and required to be updated for each new version of these 
formats), then third parties could provide read/write abilities in 
their competing office suites, and consumers would have a choice. As 
it is now, most people HAVE to use Office, because their friends and 
co-workers do, and they must be able to share documents with them.
    Thomas Winzig
    8187 Sully Dr.
    Orlando, FL 32818
    407-;293-;7087



MTC-00027907

From: Mikal Mathisen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
11753 Sunrise Drive NE
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110-;4349
(206) 842-;5154
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you today to express my opinion in regards to the 
Microsoft settlement issue. I support Microsoft and I support the 
settlement that was reached in November. I believe it will serve in 
the best public interest to end this costly litigation battle.
    This settlement is fair and reasonable. Microsoft has agreed to 
all terms and conditions, including: disclosing information about 
certain internal interfaces included in Windows and designing future 
versions of Windows to make it easier to install non- Microsoft 
software. A technical oversight committee has been created to 
monitor Microsoft compliance.
    During these difficult times, one of our highest priorities 
should be to boost our lagging economy. Restricting Microsoft will 
not accomplish this end. Please support this settlement so this 
company can get back to the business of creating innovative 
software, which will benefit all of us. Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Stephanie Mathisen



MTC-00027908

From: Chris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is apparent that Microsoft violated the law and the spirit of 
the law regarding antitrust regulation. The Bush administration's 
settlement proposal is totally INADEQUATE. It does not do enough to 
eliminate Microsoft's monopoly and force changes in the software 
market.



MTC-00027909

From: fred tenore
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:04pm
Subject: Microsoft
    I don't side with Microsft,they will do it again Now how is it 
he came by windows. now how is it microsoft wound up in court, are 
you goiung to let it happen again. So attack! repeat attack! Fred 
Tenore



MTC-00027910

From: Charles Faulkner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Charles Faulkner
647 Brookfield Avenue
Brookfield, MO 64628-;1206
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    In this era of bad economic times, the news of a proposed 
settlement between the federal government and Microsoft was most 
welcome. I just hope that the settlement is not unfairly torpedoed 
during the public comment period.
    This settlement was not proposed by Microsoft merely as a way of 
extracting itself from this litigation. The settlement contains a 
number of substantial changes in Microsoft's business practices and 
the proposal has met the preliminary approval of a court- appointed 
settlement mediator. The most significant concession in my opinion 
is Microsoft's agreement to grant broad new rights to computer 
makers to configure Windows operating systems so as to promote 
competition from non- Microsoft software programs. Both competitors 
and consumers should applaud these moves.
    Please don't allow all of the hard work put in reaching this 
settlement to have been a waste of time. Thank you for your 
consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Charles Faulkner



MTC-00027911

From: Decker F Wong-Godfrey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madame,
    I am writing as a concerned citizen about the proposed 
settlement with Microsoft. As a professional in the industry, and as 
a general computer user, I do not believe that the proposed 
settlement is in the public interest for a number of reasons. These 
are a few:
    * 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.
    * Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep 
Windows apps from running on competing operating systems.
    * Microsoft has in the past inserted intentional 
incompatibilities in its applications to keep them from running on 
competing operating systems.
    * 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 as currently written appears to lack an effective 
enforcement mechanism.
    Thank you,
    Decker F. Wong-Godfrey
    1006 S 312th St #233
    Federal Way, WA 98003



MTC-00027912

From: Simon Lewis
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 28160]]

Date: 1/28/02 12:05pm
Subject: Settlement Comment
    I do not agree to the terms of the pending settlement. I believe 
in the market place and competition, by requiring Microsoft to 
release all of its API's. That way, companies can innovate new 
products because they will know how to make them work on the 
monopoly platform, rather than having to ask Microsoft's permission. 
No-one owns the English language, and no company should be allowed 
by *unlawful* conduct) to build a monopoly on what is essentially a 
computer language.



MTC-00027913

From: William Trueman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wanted to comment on the microsoft settlement that has been 
reached. Microsoft needs to be punished more that this settlement 
proposes for its anticompetitive, anti-innovative practices. Due to 
its monopoly there has been a squash on Operating Systems 
competition due to the inability for other superior OSes to compete 
with Microsoft Windows. These operating systems such as Macintosh 
OS, need to be given a chance. This settlement does not provide 
enough to resolve the problem of the Microsoft monopoly and its 
ranging effects on competition.
    Will Trueman
    Macintosh and Windows user and owner



MTC-00027914

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
United States Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Ms. Hesse,
    As an educator and working professional in the Computer Industry 
I thank you for the opportunity to express my concerns regarding the 
Microsoft Settlement. While unqualified to speak on the legal 
merits, my opinion on the affects on the computer industry may be of 
some value.
    Microsoft has always been an aggressive marketer of their 
technology and vision of the computer in business and home. While I 
respect their right to do so, I disapprove of some of their tactics 
and the long term consequences of their clear and pervasive market 
monopoly. Netscape was only one of their most visible victims. Do 
not forget WordPerfect or Lotus 1-;2-;3, both overcome, in 
part, by their inability to operate as effectively on Microsoft 
operating systems as their Microsoft analogs, Word and Excel.
    Because Microsoft has developed this strategy of supporting 
their internal developers, the marketplace is less able to provide 
innovative new alternatives. The most recent example is the decision 
by Microsoft to not support the developing standards for JAVA 
programming, thus ensuring another round of incompatibility issues 
with applications developed using non-Microsoft tools. In other 
words, Microsoft is saying ``Buy our development tools if you 
want your applications to run as well as possible on our operating 
systems''.
    The critical distinction is between the Operating System and the 
Application domains. A forward looking option is to enforce 
transparency on the operating system; that they publish all the 
specifications, functions, and procedure calls available to any 
application. This will ensure as level a playing field as possible, 
so that any application developer will be able to utilize any 
feature of the system as effectively as a Microsoft application 
developer.
    With regard to counter arguments that this will compromise 
intellectual property or corporate secrets, their copyright will 
still be protected under U.S Law. They will have the remedy of the 
courts for any perceived violation of their rights, and they will be 
treated as any other author with regard to the fruits of their 
labor.
    While some remedy is necessary, in my opinion, to balance this 
market influence, I disagree that the firm should be broken up. It 
is a complex and possibly intractible problem with which you are 
faced. The advantages Microsoft has provided to all of us in 
developing, standardizing ,and popularizing personal computer 
technology cannot be discounted. But some enforcement of checks and 
balances must be found a reasonable course. The current proposal may 
be unenforcable and may provide opportunities for Microsoft to avoid 
compliance or exempt itself from the provisions.
    I encourage you to hold open hearings and permit input from any 
interested party, not only the competitors and the plaintiffs in the 
case. Provide a forum for robust discussion of opportunities for 
cooperative change.
    Microsoft isn't going anywhere; decisions of this magnitude 
deserve open dialog, consideration of many differing perspectives, 
and careful deliberation.
    Thank you for taking the time to consider these comments. If you 
have any questions please contact me at your convenience.
    Sincerely,
    Alan M. Ford
    Instructor
    Computer Science & Information Systems
    American University
    4400 Massachusetts Ave., NW
    Washington DC 20016-;8116
    phone: 202.885.2283
    fax: 202.885.1479
    email: [email protected]



MTC-00027915

From: Joseph Haefeli
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    After reading about the Microsoft antitrust settlement, I must 
comment that I do not feel it is in the best interest of the US or 
the US school systems to give Microsoft yet another opportunity to 
practice their bombastic, destructive practices. Giving Microsoft 
the opportunity to further their power via their so-called giving of 
technology to schools just serves to erode in their favor one of the 
few remaining fields where they do not currently have a monopolistic 
grip. Additionally, the amorphous nature of this part of the 
agreement leaves schools vulnerable to onerous license agreements in 
a few years.
    Thank you for consideration of these comments.
    Joseph Haefeli
    Director of Computer Resources
    College of Performing & Visual Arts
    University of Northern Colorado



MTC-00027916

From: Kimberly Brosan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    I am writing in regard to the proposed settlement in the 
Microsoft Antitrust case. I feel that there are tremendous problems 
with the proposal and support the open letter written by Dan Kegel. 
There you will find my signature along with many many other people 
who are also concerned by this proposal.
    I also support Dan Kegel's essay regarding the problems and 
difficulties that the proposed settlement will create. I hope that 
the Department of Justice will seriously reconsider the problems 
with the plan and work to revise it so that it will be of benefit to 
computer users.
    If Microsoft is not reined in and given more stringent 
guidelines to follow, they will continue to create products which 
don't work and there won't be any alternatives available. I am glad 
that there are alternative operating systems available currently, 
but they deserve just as much access to the market as Microsoft has.
    Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Kimberly A. Brosan



MTC-00027917

From: Brubaker, Tony
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 12:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Honorable Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    I am writing to express concern regarding the proposed Microsoft 
anti-trust settlement. The settlement does not adequately resolve 
the damage caused by Microsoft's monopolistic practices and does not 
provide adequate guarantees that Microsoft will not continue to 
engage in monopolistic practices.
    Even though the courts have determined that Microsoft violated 
the U.S. anti-trust laws, the proposed settlement would allow 
Microsoft to retain the profits from its illegal practices and does 
nothing to provide remedies for the many companies that were 
negatively impacted or put out of business by Microsoft's illegal 
activities.
    Furthermore, Microsoft is essentially being asked to police 
itself, so there is no assurance that Microsoft will not continue to 
engage in illegal practices. Microsoft can largely carry on as it 
had before, and the government is therefore implicitly endorsing 
Microsoft's monopoly.
    I ask you to reconsider the proposed settlement and find another 
solution that

[[Page 28161]]

addresses the issues that are mentioned above. Thank you very much.
    Sincerely,
    Anthony Brubaker
    13 Viburnum Court
    Lafayette Hill, PA 19444



MTC-00027918

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    That Microsoft has maintained a very strong position in the IT 
marketplace is a given. That Microsoft has done so unfairly is not. 
Microsoft has always maintained its position of strength through 
business strategies that simply make good sense. I am not so sure 
that these strategies warrant this federal lawsuit.
    That the lawsuit suddenly collapsed into a settlement rather 
makes my point. Even though the terms of the settlement are 
certainly not favorable to Microsoft, it has the advantage of ending 
the suit. That Microsoft will be forced into a position of greater 
cooperation with its OEMs and third party software developers is 
good. However, that they will be forced to give up some more of its 
source code is not. Since both sides have agreed to these terms 
suggests that the settlement will be more constructive than the suit 
would have been.
    I am writing to add my own support to the settlement. I am 
hopeful that any additional court action on this matter will be 
unnecessary.
    Sincerely,
    Ray Collins
    Senior LAN Administrator
    Computer Sciences Corporation



MTC-00027919

From: Tim Spink
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Honorable Judge Kollar-Kotelly, As a management student at 
Boston University, the settlement between that US Justice Department 
and Microsoft (PFJ) disturbs me.
    To begin with, the PFJ still allows Microsoft to operate as a 
monopoly through its Windows operating system. In addition to giving 
permission to Microsoft to continue breaking anti-trust laws, PFJ 
does nothing to punish the company of its monopolistic practices 
from years past.
    Microsoft has routinely used monopolistic strategies to gain a 
larger market share with little regard to competitive practices 
defended in the American legal system. Not only has superior 
software been either absorbed or destroyed by the company, but the 
chance of other companies moving competition further in the industry 
has been effectively terminated by Microsoft and this settlement. In 
fact, the PFJ does little to enforce the weak restrictions demanded 
of Microsoft.
    To sum up, I'm deeply concerned the recent settlement does not 
regulate Microsoft's monopolistic tactics, nor does it punish the 
company's disregard for established law. I request that you do your 
best to overturn this settlement.
    Respectfully,
    Tim Spink
    Box 5778
    140 Bay State Road
    Boston, MA 02215



MTC-00027920

From: T Bird
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    I am objecting to the proposed final settlement that the DOJ and 
MS have agreed upon behind closed doors. Not only does this go 
against the findings by the U.S. Court of Appeals but, in facts 
allows MS to go unpunished for past wrong doings.
    In addition the Proposed Final Judgment permits Microsoft to 
continue its predatory practices at the expense of other companies. 
Thus, my main argument encompasses the preservation of healthy 
competition and the promotion of diversity with in the business 
sector. For a single entity, such as MS, to control 80 to 90 percent 
of the market for PC operating systems, e-mail readers, and office 
productivity software (which undoubtedly can spread viruses) is 
clearly a significant risk to security. To then allow that monopoly 
to actively attempt to drive out its remaining competition would 
hardly be in the public interest.
    Therefore, I submit to you in all fairness that the Proposed 
Final Judgment will not solve the Microsoft issue.
    ALL THE BEST,
    DR. JIMENEZ
    1786 LE BEC Court
    LODI, CA



MTC-00027921

From: Justin Jones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    Today I write to encourage the Department of Justice to accept 
the Microsoft antitrust settlement. This issue has been festering in 
the courts for over three years now and it is time to put an end to 
it. A settlement is available and the terms are fair, and I for one 
would like to see the government accept it.
    In order to put this issue behind them Microsoft has agreed to 
many terms. They have agreed to design future versions of Windows to 
be more compatible to non-Microsoft software. They have also agreed 
to change several aspects of the way that they do business with 
computer makers. Microsoft has even agreed to terms that extend well 
beyond the products and procedures that were actually at issue in 
the suit. Microsoft has given a lot to be able to put this issue 
behind them, I would like to see the government accept it.
    Microsoft and the technology industry need to move forward. The 
only way to move forward is to put this issue in the past. Please 
accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Justin Jones



MTC-00027922

From: Sarah E Kleinknecht
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge,
    I would like to express my concern about the case against 
Microsoft. Microsoft has become a monopoly on the operating system 
on computers. Microsoft needs competition so that we the American 
people can receive the best products. In the case, the PFJ will 
allow Microsoft to continue as a monopoly which is not right! Thank 
you for your consideration.
    Respectfully,
    Sarah Kleinknecht
    184 Earhart Hall
    West Lafayette, IN 47906
    (765) 495-;6126
    CC:[email protected]@i
netgw



MTC-00027923

From: Mark J Antlitz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In my opinion the government is bullying Microsoft. Our taxes 
would be much better spent going after companies such as Enron and 
friends. It is quite clear to me as well as any other educated 
individual that our government as well as corporate America wreaks 
with corruption. It is time to focus on this very real problem and 
stop attacking the innocent in an effort to hide the guilty.
    Sincerely,
    Mark Antlitz
    [email protected]



MTC-00027924

From: Stephen Yoakum
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:10pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    let it go cut some slack, Accept the offer of Microsofts pack 
further litagation will only enhance the position of a very few.



MTC-00027925

From: david levitt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement will not end abusive, anti competitive 
acts by Microsoft. Any suitable remedy should include as a minimal 
subset: Public disclosure of all file, disk, network protocol and 
other data interchange formats used by Microsoft operating systems 
and programs. This information to be sufficient to allow seamless 
translation to and from Microsoft file formats, and seamless 
interoperation with Microsoft software.
    Full disclosure of all Application Programming Interfaces. 
Microsoft applications forbidden to use interfaces unavailable to 
independant software developers.
    No software discounts other than quantity purchased. Uniform, 
publiclly available price schedules. Microsoft product licences to 
be made transferrable and vendable, the same way physical products 
are treated [e.g. textbooks, novels and other common publications].
    No penalties may be asesed by Microsoft against computer 
manufacturers, software developers or end users for using non-

[[Page 28162]]

Microsoft software or supplying it as an option.
    Computer manufacturers to have free reign to sell the hardware 
and software that they deem approriate, including systems without an 
installed operating system, or systems operable with multiple 
operating systems.
    Microsoft software installations are not permitted to disable 
currently functional software. Microsoft to be forbidden to announce 
products prior to 90 days before shipment to customers.
    Any group monitoring terms of the settlement to have the right 
and duty to provide public disclosure.
    David Levitt
    19 Doral Lane
    Bay Shore, NY



MTC-00027926

From: Terri Tenore
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:13pm
Subject: microsoft
    I don't side with Microsoft, how do you think he came up 
windows, why is it Microsoft was in court! ``they will do it 
again''. attack repeat attack
    Fred Tenore



MTC-00027927

From: caos vida
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I very much feel that Microsoft has too much control of the 
market and this needs to be corrected. I belive that linux and any 
other operating system should have an fair chance to gain access to 
our computing world and be able to coexist. This is no different 
than the AT&T breakup and the soloution to that worked very well 
I think in retrospect.
    kevin j brennan
    rd#2 box 148
    frankford de. 19945



MTC-00027928

From: Roger Mullan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:12pm
Subject: Microsoft is an essential part of the recovering IT 
industry
    To whom it may concern
    I am a computer programmer and I feel that a whole and strong 
Microsoft , as an industry leader, is an essential part of the 
recovering IT industry. Some of Microsoft's tactics may be less than 
honorable but that is business , the software and standards they 
produce are essential to millions of people's business and social 
lives. I appeal to you to, please not allow any group or individual 
, to threaten the evolution of the IT industry and the progress that 
Microsoft is making in all aspects of there newly innovated 
standards and software.
    Any breakup of Microsoft would put the industry back, at least 
10 years and who knows how long it would take to recover,affecting 
the work and recreation of millions.
    I trust you will take these facts into account, when making your 
judgment.
    Yours truly
    Roger K Mullan
    IT Consultant
    CC:Microsoft ATR



MTC-00027929

From: David Taber--;DOTnet Consulting
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:13pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement citizen/competitor input
    I understand that there is still time to submit public comment/ 
recommendations on the Microsoft antitrust settlement. Summary:
    * The software industry is so complex, and Microsoft so 
dominant, that administrative and procedural remedies will be a 
complete waste of time for the government and Microsoft itself. 
There are too many loopholes and back- doors to ever regulate the 
company as structured.
    * Splitting the company up would work to an extent, but over the 
long run would simply create two or more monopolies, rather than one 
big one.
    * Perversely, the industry actually prospers when there is a 
near-monopoly to drive de facto standardization. The software 
industry does *not* thrive on the chaos of small players. So the 
industry would be best if there were a quasi monopolist that didn't 
do economic harm.
    * The only way to actually neutralize a monopoly in the software 
industry is to fundamentally alter the economics of the monopolist. 
With the incentive gone, the behavior and damage to the industry 
would fade away.
    * The operating systems market for Intel-based PCs is brain-
dead: it exists, but it does not function in any meaningful sense. 
So there is an opportunity to neutralize the bad effects of the 
Microsoft monopoly.
    * The government can use the argument of eminent domain to 
declare the PC OS ``marketplace'' as property that will be 
taken over in the public interest. The government then grants this 
``marketplace'' as a dead-zone in which only Microsoft can 
be a commercial supplier. The government pays Microsoft one dollar a 
year, and the fees paid by PC vendors for their operating systems 
goes to the US treasury. (An alternate form of this recommendation 
is just to put Windows into pure open source, where many vendors can 
work to make the system more secure and reliable while no vendor can 
charge for the product.)
    * Microsoft thus has an incentive to keep their OS innovations 
going (to make their applications business prosper, but they get no 
monopoly profits from the OS. They also have little power over the 
PC vendors or application vendors.
    Now that I've written the ``summary,'' I'll spare you 
the details.
    Regards, and good luck.
    David O. Taber
    DOTnet Consulting
    555 Bryant Street, Palo Alto CA 94301
    voice: +1-;650-;326-;3405 (rolls to voicemail)
    page: [email protected] (keep your 
message just one line ! !)
    fax: +1-;650-;326-;1475
    mail: [email protected]
    ICQ: 138661538
    www.D-O-Tnet.com



MTC-00027930

From: Raj
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    I wish to express my personal perspective on Microsoft vs. U.S
    As an 8th grader in Rantoul, Illinois I have concluded and 
noticed many disturbing views of Microsoft's control of the software 
industry or as we would say monopoly. I really don't think its fair 
Microsoft is a monopoly because of the prices it sets on software. 
$200 on software program which I know it would be about $50 if there 
was competition.
    I have learned in school about the Sherman Anti-Trust Act was 
too weak or very ineffective because of big companies bribing high 
officials which I think that Microsoft is doing. I might not have 
any proof but I know that Microsoft is at least violating some part 
of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act which I think is really wrong. If we 
let one company do this then slowly more and more companies will 
start doing this in other industries.
    Although I like the stuff Microsoft makes the thing is that they 
set the prices to high.We all know that there are many more 
companies competent enough to make such software if given a chance. 
That way people will have more variety. Microsoft is just taking it 
easy with coming out with not so late and just adding a few 
adjustments to their software at their own price and pace they would 
like to set it at. If there are more companies the quality of the 
product will become better and that way many companies will join in 
to make the best quickly. The prices will be low and the people will 
be content.
    Thank you
    Sincerely Yours,
    Yashua Bhatti



MTC-00027931

From: Bob Petolillo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please see the attached letter concerning the lawsuit against 
Microsoft.
    Bob Petolillo
    Enterprise Data Solutions
    148 Basil Court
    Lawrenceville, GA 30043-;6126
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    January 26, 2002
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As a member of the IT industry, I welcome an end to the 
Microsoft anti-trust case. This case has had a debilitating effect 
on the IT industry and the economy in general. If fair competition 
is the desired end to the government's actions, competition is not 
encouraged by draining the energy of one competitor. You do not get 
a better race by hobbling the favorite. Howsoever, a means to end 
this case exists in the proposed settlement agreement before you now 
for consideration. It should be adopted and this case resolved. The 
settlement fairly deals

[[Page 28163]]

with the positions of all the parties. Microsoft, by its terms, will 
remain one sole corporation, but will take certain actions to dilute 
its monopolistic influences in its industry. Microsoft will now 
configure its Windows platforms to invite the use of non-Microsoft 
software. It will no longer contractually constrain computer 
manufacturers to the nearly exclusive use of Microsoft products in 
licensing agreements. It will submit itself to ongoing review by a 
new federal oversight committee. It has committed itself to a 
completely new method of doing business entailing an active effort 
to foster competition. Microsoft deserves to continue to thrive. It 
is an elemental force in perhaps our nation's most important 
industry. Please support this settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Petolillo



MTC-00027932

From: Kevin McDaniel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Distiguished Gentlemen,
    Please accept my attached letter of opinion for your 
consideration on the current Microsoft Settlemt Case. I am hopeful 
my opinions will be mirrored in policy by the party and 
administration I so adamantly support.
    Respectfully,
    Kevin McDaniel
    President
    Arrival Technologies Inc.
    415 Security Square
    Gulfport, MS 39507
    228-;314-;1100 ext. 101
    228-;323-;1166 cell
    228-;897-;1109 fax
    [email protected]
Arrival Technologies, Inc.
Your Single Source for Business Technology
January 16,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I suspect the Justice Department offered to settle its antitrust 
lawsuit against Microsoft due to your taking over as head of the 
agency. As a reasonable man you probably recognize the Clinton 
Administration's antitrust suit against Microsoft, and their 
intended break-up of the company, jeopardized software innovation 
and standardization. This scenario would seriously hinder the United 
States'' competitive edge and is why the settlement should be 
finalized without further ado.
    If one accepts the premise that Microsoft is a monopoly, which I 
do not, the settlement will cure the problem. The settlement speaks 
for itself: 1) Microsoft has agreed not to retaliate against 
computer makers who ship software that competes with anything in its 
Windows operating system; 2) Microsoft has agreed not to retaliate 
against the software developers who make or promote the software 
that competes with Microsoft. While these are only two tenets of the 
22 pages of the settlement, they alone should make Microsoft's 
competitors happy because they will inhibit anti-competitive 
behavior. I find it curious that certain opponent's of Microsoft 
reject the settlement and refuse to sign on to it. It is 
unfortunate; they should not be allowed to derail the process.
    I am a small business owner in South Mississippi who specializes 
in computer networking and software support. It is my steadfast 
belief that the free market should be allowed to determine which 
products are bought and sold by professionals in the industry. 
Microsoft offers superior products and this is why they possess the 
market share they do. This lawsuit has not only affected my business 
but also my investments in the market. It is my hope that the 
government will accept the settlement in as timely a manner as 
possible so our industry can begin to heal from this unnecessary 
intrusion into the free market.
    Sincerely,
    Kevin McDaniel
    President
    Cc: Senator Trent Lott
    415 Security Square, Gulfport MS 39507
    228-;314-;1100



MTC-00027933

From: Neal Lindsay
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it might concern:
    I am a network administrator for a small engineering company, 
and I have been working with computers for half of my 
life--;usually on Microsoft operating systems. I have had the 
chance to use other operating systems (such as various Unices and 
Linux) and many have signifigant advanced features that Windows 
(even XP) has not come close to. Microsoft has the money to 
implement such advanced features, but it does not have to because 
its customers are locked into its operating system. This is probably 
the single largest problem plaguing the computer world right now, 
and this case has the opportunity to force Microsoft to open up and 
let in any companies brave enough to challenge it. That being said, 
I do not believe that the proposed Microsoft settlement goes far 
enough. The idea of making Microsoft open up its APIs is a good one, 
but it is weakened by the restrictions placed upon it. For example, 
any scrutiny of Microsoft's code is bound to reveal security holes 
(Microsoft software is traditionally full of them). Microsoft would 
almost certainly use this as an excuse to not open up more than a 
token amount of what would be needed for a company to compete with 
them.
    This case is complicated from both a legal standpoint and a 
computer technology standpoint--;to the point that almost noone 
can understand the proposed settlement. You are not likely to find 
an impartial voice in all of these public comments--;everyone 
has a stake in the outcome. But please, don't let Microsoft off with 
just a slap on the wrist. They have continued to violate anti-trust 
laws even as they were in trial for breaking those same laws. They 
need some sort of serious penalty AND need to take steps to reverse 
their ill-gained market shares in many different markets.
    Thank you.
    Neal Lindsay
    Network Manager



MTC-00027934

From: O B
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    I am filing my objection to the Proposed Final Judgment in the 
Microsoft case. In the last several weeks, close friends and 
relatives have brought this proposed settlement to my attention and 
in all honestly I dont like what I see. I cant possibly imagine the 
Department of Justice throwing out court findings that indicts 
Microsoft for all illegal activities both past and present. First 
and foremost the Proposed Final Judgment grants MS a government 
mandated monopoly that threatens to destroy any and all serious 
Microsoft competitors. Im all for free enterprise and what it 
symbolizes. To strike a huge blow against the spirit of free 
enterprise, one need not look any further than to allow MS to 
monopolize every sector, whether it is the gaming industry or the 
software industry, by eradicating most if not all competitors. By 
all means diversity is one essential ingredient in maintaining a 
healthy industry and more importantly a thriving economy.
    I submit to the Court that the Proposed Final Judgment does not 
solve the Microsoft issue.
    Respectfully,
    ERLIN JIMENEZ
    1786 LE BEC COURT
    LODI, CA 95240



MTC-00027935

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:16pm
Subject: Re:Moicrosoft Settlement
    I favor having al lof the states settlle the Microsoft cases in 
the manner thant has alreadyh been done by the other states. It is 
time to bring these actions to a conclusion.
    Sincerely.
    Robert D Roach Jr



MTC-00027936

From: Bev
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:16pm
Subject: antitrust lawsuit
    Microsoft is a creative, tough company which may, or may not, 
have had some anti-trust practices in the past, but it is time to 
move on. The company has worked hard to develop products that people 
need and use. Just because some other companies are unable or 
unwilling to work as hard and creatively, they should not be allowed 
to succeed by bringing Microsoft down. This company has done much 
for the economy and needs to be allowed to move on past this 
lawsuit. Please find in favor of the Microsoft settlement as 
presented.
    Thank you,
    Bev and Morris Crump
    6105 284th Street NW
    Stanwood, WA 98292



MTC-00027937

From: George J. Papanicolaou

[[Page 28164]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:15pm
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. The proposed penalty for Microsoft's violations is entirely 
prospective and the predictability of the penalty to effect a 
sufficient diminishment of Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior is 
completely inadequate, including being overly complex and to vague, 
especially in light of published comments by Microsoft CEO Steve 
Balmer after Microsoft's conviction that he does not even know what 
a monopoly is. Furthermore, Microsoft has failed to live up to 
previous agreements. In addition, Microsoft did not report its 
extensive lobbying of Congress or a White House meeting last summer 
between its chief executive, Steve Ballmer, and Vice President Dick 
Cheney. This is a violation of the Tunney Act itself.
    What would make the settlement fair? Divide the company into 
Applications and System Software entities with a firewall between 
them. Had politics not interfered, this approach was the only 
logical choice. Failing this reasonable approach, other remedies, 
although half-measures are required.
    1) Open up all Windows APIs to all interested parties with 
thorough documentation and standardization. Exorbitant penalties 
would be made if either the APIs are not fully documented or if non-
open APIs are used by Microsoft.
    2) Open up all Microsoft Document Standards and publish them 
immediately because market dominance has created a defacto standard 
for such files. In addition, the use of a non-Microsoft standards 
board, modeled on the W3 organization for web site documents, could 
insure that office as well as other documents generated by Microsoft 
applications would be fully usable, readable, and alterable by other 
programs. This would allow some competition in the office suite 
industry and hopefully prevent the use of ``Microsoft 
only'' codes in browser or office apps that prevent others from 
having a choice in selecting an office suite. Also, features that 
allow a user to assign the opening of programs with other apps 
through a central registry would be useful, allowing an individual 
to easily bypass Microsoft Products and Services.
    3) Microsoft should be required to produce Office Software for 
the Macintosh system as long as Apple remains in business. It should 
not be able to again threaten Apple with canceling further Mac 
Office development. In addition, Microsoft must be required to make 
the Mac Office Suite with the same features and document 
transparency as the Windows version. They must also not hobble the 
software in any way to make the Windows version appear faster. As 
Mac Office is a profitable venture for Microsoft, failing to 
manufacture it would be indicative of a monopoly threatening a small 
rival.
    In addition, software which can interact with Microsoft server 
products, such as Outlook, should be made available for the Mac, 
including subsequent operating systems, and have all features 
available in the Windows client.
    4) In order to give more choices to consumers, either Microsoft 
should create a Linux version of their Office and Browser software 
or should license their software and/or ``look and feel'' 
to anyone wishing to produce software for the Linux system. This 
would keep Microsoft from keeping offices and homeowners away from 
alternative operating systems. Microsoft used to offer Word for Unix 
systems with far fewer users than Linux. It cannot argue that as a 
company with monopoly powers and rich coffers that it isn't 
feasible.
    As someone who has been using computers and programming them for 
seventeen years, I have seen little innovation from Microsoft. The 
advances in the field have been due to smaller players that have 
been crushed by Microsoft. Currently, Microsoft has monopoly powers 
and is seems less concerned with innovation, reliability, and 
security, than with market domination and extension. Our national 
security and economic competitiveness requires a stronger action 
than has been proposed by the Justice Department.
    Regards,
    George J. Papanicolaou, PhD.



MTC-00027938

From: Fred Tenore
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:16pm
Subject: Microsoft
    I don't side with and don't trust Microsoft. They will do it 
again, so attack! repeat attack!
    Frederick Tenore



MTC-00027939

From: Adam Christian Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would just like to add my two cents on how I personally have 
seen Microsoft quell, steal, or destroy creativity in the 
programming and software market using proprietary language. 
Secondly, they are dirty as hell. They leverage there power and when 
questioned, they act like they can1t ``innovate'' if they 
are restricted in any way. Truth be told, Microsoft has never 
``innovated'' a thing in their history. It has all been 
direct copies, cheap rip-offs of other platforms, or buyouts of 
small companies again putting them in the position to dominate a 
market.
    Thanks,
    Adam



MTC-00027940

From: jerldon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:20pm
Subject: Fwd: [MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT]
    DEAR SIR
    I AM A CONCERNED CITIZEN WHO BELIEVES THAT THE CLINTON 
ADMINSTRATION STARTED THIS ANTITRUST STUFF AGAINST MICROSOFT SIMPLE 
TO ALLOW THEIR ATTORNEY FRIENDS TO MAKE A LOT OF MONEY IN LEGAL FEES 
AND HAd nothing to do with microsoft being A MONOPOLY. THEY JUST 
HAPPENED TO BE AN EASEY TARGET. I AM SURE IF YOU
    LOOK AROUND YOU CAN FIND SOME REAL PROBLEMS IE ARTHUR ANDERSEN, 
ENRON, ETC.
    SINCERLY
    JC BOATRIGHT
    1345 FALKENBURG RD
    TAMPA, FL 33619
    813 657 2663



MTC-00027941

From: Page, Nathan (N.L.)
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 12:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I agree with Microsoft.



MTC-00027942

From: u V
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    Your honor, I am stating my objection to the Final Settlement 
agreed upon between the Department of Justice and Microsoft. I 
wanted to point out several underlying flaws attributed to the 
Proposed Final Judgment.
    One noticeable flaw encompasses an inept enforcement device 
implementing restrictions. The settlement in other words closely 
monitors and screens all of Microsofts business activities. This 
close scrutiny insures MS complies with all restrictions entailed in 
the agreement.
    A three man compliance team will oversee and insure that 
Microsoft comply with the stated rules and regulations. Yet, this 
three-man oversight committee will be composed of the following: one 
appointee from the Justice Department, one appointee from Microsoft, 
and another appointee chosen by the two existing members. In turn, 
Microsoft will control half of the oversight team.
    Also, in the likelihood of any enforcement proceeding, all 
findings by the oversight committee will not be allowed into court. 
The sole purpose of the committee is to inform the Justice 
Department of all infractions by Microsoft. Subsequently the Justice 
Depart will launch its own investigation into the matter and 
commence litigation to halt all infractions. When all is said and 
done, the oversight committee is just window dressing, who will not 
strictly oversee Microsofts business moves?
    In my opinion, the Proposed Final Judgment does not provide 
appropriate restrictions against Microsoft. What reassurance do we 
have against Microsofts illegal and illicit activities? I can assure 
you that the Proposed Final Judgment does not effectively nor 
sufficiently address the question. In conclusion, I submit your 
honor my objection to the final settlement in the Microsoft case.
    Sincerely,
    Dr. Cesar Ortiz
    285 Glennwood Ave.
    Daly City, CA 94015
    650-;758-;2658



MTC-00027943

From: Jean Peterson
To: Microsoft 
ATR,[email protected]@inetg
w,[email protected]...

[[Page 28165]]

Date: 1/28/02 12:21pm
Subject: Judgement
    If I understand the Judgement correctly, Microsoft is to receive 
no ``punishment'' at all for it's illegal activities. They 
are only instructed to stop performing them. This is a problem. 
Perhaps the Government or the Court feels that Microsoft has already 
suffered some penalties because of the interruption of business and 
other interference because of this litigation. However, in other 
cases where, for instance, a criminal's punishment is limited to 
something already done (i.e. ``time served''), sentence is 
still passed for the record and that stipulation that the sentence 
is to be considered ``fulfilled'' is still entered into 
record. And considering the amount of money that the various 
governments have had to spend in legal proceedings simply to force 
Microsoft to stop behaviors that were illegal to begin with, the 
governments should at least apply penalties to recoup these monies 
in the interests of their constituents.
    Jean Peterson



MTC-00027945

From: Purple Rose
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Deborah E. Rose
    7804 Briana Renee Way
    Las Vegas, NV 89123-;0449
    January 27, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I support the recently proposed antitrust settlement between 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice. I would like to see an end 
to this lawsuit and I believe this is one of the more favorable 
resolutions. Microsoft has given up access to several of its Windows 
products, and given up much of the code that helps Windows run 
efficiently.
    Historically, Windows has been a large part of its competitive 
advantage. This is a very generous concession on the part of 
Microsoft. I hope that you will support Microsoft. It has stood out 
as a great example of a company that can be charitably generous and 
still make lots of profit. We should allow it to continue these 
efforts.
    Sincerely,
    Deborah Rose



MTC-00027946

From:
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:24pm
Subject: Antitrust settlement
    Renata Hesse: I believe that the antitrust settlement between 
the USDOJ, Nine States and Microsoft should be approved. From my 
perspective, as a consumer, this suit was never about my protection, 
How am I hurt by getting something for free, that someone else wants 
me to pay them for? Putting the browser in the operating system is 
so logical that I have wondered about the suit from the beginning. 
This entire process has been brought on behalf of competitors. I did 
not think that this was the purpose of antitrust efforts. But, the 
judges have ruled, so the best thing to do is get the settlement 
approved and move on.
    Duane E. Matthews
    7817 SE 75th Place
    Mercer Island, WA 98040-;5501



MTC-00027947

From: Peter McDonald
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:25pm
Subject: Microsoft PFJ Comments.
    To whom it may concern,
    
    As a consumer of Microsoft products as well as a business 
professional in the software industry I would like to add a few 
important comments concerning the proposed final judgment between 
the US DOJ and Microsoft. Simply put the proposed settlement does 
very little to address the three items listed by the US Court of 
Appeals. Hence, my recommendation is that the PFJ proposal in its 
current form is not acceptable. I ask that the DOJ needs to address 
the three key components listed unanimously by the U.S. Court of 
Appeals ruling. Specifically, to
    *terminate Microsoft's legal monopoly
    *deny Microsoft the fruits of its past violations
    *prevent future anticompetitive activity.
    As an observer and professional in the software world I define 
Microsoft's mantra to be one of domination. Over the past few 
decades Microsoft has uses both legal and illegal practices to 
attain their goal of domination. If the current PFJ is accepted, I'm 
left with two questions.
    First, does the DOJ's definition of effective anti-trust work 
include the supporting of monopolies? Second, is the precedent for 
dealing with companies with a track record of violating anti-trust 
laws to condone their track record of violations? I hope the answer 
to both questions are no. As such I ask that the current PFJ be 
updated to include the three items unanimously decreed by the US 
Court of Appeals.
    It is great to be an American where each individual has a voice. 
Thank you for your consideration of this issue.
    Regards,
    Peter McDonald
    Peter McDonald
    Director
    VerdiSoft
    Palo Alto, CA
    650 812-;8511 office



MTC-00027948

From: Michael Horowitz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    One complication in this case is defining what a computer 
Operating System(OS) is. Microsoft keeps adding features to Windows 
and every time it does, it stretches the meaning of the term 
``Operating System''. What Microsoft sells now is not so 
much an OS, but a combination of an OS and assorted applications. No 
doubt you are aware that what Microsoft does in expanding the scope 
of the OS is tantamount to what, in other contexts, is called 
``dumping''. It is as if Toyota started selling its cars 
for $3,000 instead of $19,000 to drive Ford Motor out of business. 
This is exactly what Microsoft does and has done many many times. 
They can do it because they are rich enough and because the 
incremental cost of software is almost zero, brutally different from 
an automobile. This case may have been about web browsers, but 
people in the computer field have seen Microsoft use the same tactic 
(give away software to kill the competition) many times.
    MY SUGGESTION:
    I suggest that development of Windows be assigned to a separate 
company that is restricted to developing an Operating System in the 
strictest sense of the term. This will require monitoring by an 
independent entity as to just what features and applications belong 
in the base OS and which are considered external applications (more 
on this below). I'm not sure if this separate Windows OS only 
company should be for profit or not.
    This would let Microsoft add whatever features and applications 
they want to the core OS and sell a product called Microsoft's 
Windows. However, Dell and Compaq and Gateway and IBM would also be 
free to add whatever features and applications they wanted to the 
core OS and sell it as their version of Windows. Any software 
company should be free to license the core Windows OS and add 
whatever features and applications they want and sell it on the open 
market. Each company selling a version of Windows would compete 
based on price, their reputation for quality software and support, 
and the features and applications they chose to include. This, by 
the way, is how Linux is sold with the exception that the core Linux 
OS is free. I am not suggesting that the core Windows OS be free.
    Drawing the line between the core Windows OS and extra-add-on 
applications could be a full-time job. In the case of word 
processing for example, it seems obvious that Notepad and WordPad 
are not full-blown word processors and therefor could be included in 
the core OS. In contrast, Word and WordPerfert are full featured 
word processors and therefore falls into the category of a seprate 
application. In other areas the distinction will not be so easy to 
make. If a program to play sound files can have 100 features, which 
of those features qualify for a bare-bones version that can be in 
the core OS and how many features does a program need before it 
qualifies as a full-blown application that can not be included in 
the core OS? Someone will need to decide.
    That's my 2 cents. Thanks.
    Michael Horowitz



MTC-00027949

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attention: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
    It is my opinion the settlement represents the best opportunity 
for Microsoft and the

[[Page 28166]]

industry to move forward. The rulings are fair to all parties 
involved.
    It is also my opinion that Microsoft is one of a few American 
corporations that truly has the ``consumers'' best 
interest at heart. I can't say that for many other corporations.
    Respectfully,
    Wendy C. Hawkins
    8838 E. Sunnyside Drive
    Scottsdale, AZ 85260
    480/314-;8586



MTC-00027950

From: judythw(a)earthlink.net
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs:
    I ask you to please not allow Microsoft to continue its monopoly 
operation. I ask for freedom to choose. We are trying to preserve 
our freedoms now. Please help.
    Judyth O. Weaver, Ph.D.
    73 Montford Avenue
    Mill Valley, California 94941
    415-;388-;3151



MTC-00027951

From: Bock, David
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 12:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally:
    I am writing to comment on the Proposed Final Judgement with 
Microsoft. As one involved in the software industry, I appreciate 
the contributions of Microsoft. However, their dominance of 
operating systems has given them extraordinary market power, which 
they have used ruthlessly to crush competitors and forestall 
innovation in the interests of consumers. The PFJ needs to be 
materially strengthened to level the playing field. The sanctions 
must be strong and the disincentives to further monopolistic 
behavior clear. Do not allow Microsoft to play on complexity, market 
uncertainty or promises of different behavior in the future. The 
company's culture is one of ruthless competition at a time when they 
should be providing support rather than destruction. They now 
operate a utility, are enjoying monopolistic returns on capital and 
are utilizing their financial strength to maintain a monopoly 
position.
    The consumer is served by the standardization that Microsoft's 
success has brought. But the consumer is also vulnerable to the 
abuse of monopoly power. The public interest requires that the 
Federal government either sanction and restrain the monopolist or 
eliminate the monopoly position.
    It's that simple.
    Sincerely yours,
    David Bock
    EVP and CFP
    Pedestal Inc.



MTC-00027952

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:26pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Please settle with microsoft.



MTC-00027953

From: Aaron S Kamlay
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am writing to comment on the Proposed Final Judgment (PFJ) of 
the United States v. Microsoft antitrust case. I believe that the 
PFJ does very little to discourage Microsoft from continuing its 
anticompetitive practices, and fails to restore balance to the 
markets which have been seriously damaged by those practices in the 
past.
    Specific Failures of the Proposed Final Judgment:
    1. Section III.J.2
    Section III.D requires Microsoft to licence ``the APIs and 
related Documentation that are used by Microsoft Middleware to 
interoperate with a Windows Operating System Product'' to 
``ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs, and OEMs''. However, section 
III.J.2 essentially gives Microsoft the freedom to choose which 
ISVs, IHVs, etc. may receive this information by allowing Microsoft 
to require that any licensee ``(a) has no history of software 
counterfeiting or piracy or willful violation of intellectual 
property rights, (b) has a reasonable business need for the API, 
Documentation or Communications Protocol for a planned or shipping 
product, (c) meets reasonable, objective standards established by 
Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of its 
business, (d) agrees to submit, at its own expense, any computer 
program using such APIs, Documentation or Communication Protocols to 
third-party verification, approved by Microsoft?''
    This gives Microsoft the ability to keep the ``applications 
barrier to entry'' artificially high. There are no restrictions 
on what Microsoft may consider ``authenticity and viability of 
[the licensee's] business'' or even a ``reasonable 
business need''. It could be used to keep start-up or open 
source software projects from gaining access to APIs crucial to 
their success; in fact, it could allow Microsoft to restrict such 
projects from information to which they had prior access via the 
MSDN. (See, for example, Jeremy White's analysis of the impact of 
section III.J.2 on the open source Wine project at http://
www.codeweavers.com/jwhite/tunneywine.html.)
    2. Section III.D.1
    Section III.D.1. exempts Microsoft from the requirement to 
``document, disclose or license to third parties: (a) portions 
of APIs or Documentation or portions or layers of Communications 
Protocols the disclosure of which would compromise the security of a 
particular installation or group of installations of anti-piracy, 
anti-virus, software licensing, digital rights management, 
encryption or authentication systems?''
    It has been reported by a variety of news agencies that 
Microsoft has plans to include digital rights management, 
authentication, and other related security features in future 
versions of Windows. See for example,
    The Register, Mar 23 2001,
    ``MS plans ``Secure PC'' that won't copy pirated 
audio files''
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/17851.html
    Wired News, Feb 13 2001,
    ``Windows XP Can Secure Music''
    http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,41614,00.html
    Microsoft has already included encryption services in Windows 
2000 Service Pack 2
    (see http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/downloads/
servicepacks/sp2/def ault.asp).
    Given Microsoft's past actions, including integration of 
Internet Explorer with the Windows OS, and more recently integration 
of Windows Media Player with WindowsXP (see http://news.com.com/
2100-;1040-;256387.html?legacy=cnet), there is every 
reason to assume that Microsoft will integrate current and future 
installations of ``anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, 
digital rights management, encryption or authentication 
systems'' into the Operating System. Thus many key APIs, such 
those dealing with basic network communication, file/disk access, 
and even simple multimedia capabilities could be claimed as 
exceptions under section III.D.1. Again, this would serve to keep 
the ``applications barrier to entry'' artificially high.
    3. General Remedies and Penalties
    Microsoft has been found guilty of maintaining their monopoly 
status through illegal means. They should not be allowed to maintain 
the profits earned by doing so. The PFJ basically codifies the 
current status quo into law, and neither punishes Microsoft for 
their past infractions nor prevents them from similar actions in the 
future. Strong structural and financial remedies and/or penalties 
are necessary to restore balance to a horribly damaged marketplace.
    The Proposed Final Judgment is completely unacceptable as a 
resolution to the U.S. v. Microsoft case. Please consider stronger, 
more effective remedies.
    Thank you,
    (signed)
    Aaron Kamlay
    Nashville, TN 37212



MTC-00027954

From: v g
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    With all due respect, I object to the (PFJ) Proposed Final 
Judgment in the Microsoft case. There are numerous flaws in the 
final proposal, which undoubtedly gives Microsoft absolute, power to 
continually abuse their existing monopoly position. Based on my 
review, the proposed settlement overlooks one thing. This one defect 
contains a faulty mechanism to implement appropriate restrictions. 
As stated in the settlement, Microsoft will be closely monitored to 
comply with all restrictions encompassed with in the stated 
agreement.
    A three man compliance team will oversee and insure that 
Microsoft comply with the stated rules and regulations. Taking a 
closer look however, this three-man oversight team will be composed 
of the following: one appointee from the Justice Department, one 
appointee from Microsoft, and another appointee chosen by the two 
existing members. In turn, Microsoft will control half of the 
oversight team. Also, in the likelihood

[[Page 28167]]

of any enforcement proceeding, all findings by the oversight 
committee will not be allowed into court. The sole purpose of the 
committee is to inform the Justice Department of all infractions by 
Microsoft.
    Subsequently the Justice Depart will launch its own 
investigation into the matter and commence litigation to halt all 
infractions. When all is said and done, the oversight committee is 
just window dressing, who will not strictly oversee Microsofts 
business moves? In my opinion, the Proposed Final Judgment does not 
provide sufficient and appropriate restrictions or penalties against 
Microsoft. What reassurance do we have against Microsofts illegal 
and illicit activities? I can assure you that the Proposed Final 
Judgment does not effectively nor sufficiently address the question. 
Therefore I submit to the court my objection to the Proposed Final 
Judgment.
    Respectfully,
    Mrs. Alsida Ortiz
    285 Glennwood Ave
    Daly City, CA 94015



MTC-00027955

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:26pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Consumer interests have been well served and it is time to end 
this costly litigation against Microsoft now.
    Helene K. d'Esterhazy



MTC-00027956

From: Classic de Sign
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am the owner of a small interior design firm and would like to 
comment on the settlement with Microsoft.
    I believe that there is undue haste in reaching a settlement for 
what has been a carefully executed pattern of illegal behavior by 
Microsoft. Microsoft controlled the application market so tightly in 
the Macintosh operationg system that it not only drove out 
competitors like WordPerfect but used its applications as hostage to 
obtain concesions from Apple Computer, Inc.
    The pattern of illegal behavior forced Apple to offer the 
Microsoft, Internet Explorer to be the supported application by 
Apple. If this would not have happened, there would have been no 
Office, Word or Excel. Futhermore, those us who used Netscape still 
found that the presence of Microsoft codes in the office 
applications to crash the Netscape browser. The choice for us was 
the applications or the Netscape browser. The same type of illegal 
tactics got its media player dominance after finding that they 
copied code from QuickTime. This issue was closed when Microsoft 
gave money to Apple to drop the suit. The patter of illegal tactics 
by Microsoft is quite large and pervasive and I find the current 
proposed settlement to be insufficiently punitive to punish or to 
encourage Microsoft to change its ways.
    I strongly suggest that the monetary settlement be cash and that 
the sum be increased to 5 Billion dollars, a sum that will teach a 
lesson and one that Microsoft can afford.
    Sincerely,
    Louis R. de Alvare



MTC-00027957

From: Nolan Lameka
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:28pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I believe the microsoft settlement is as fair as it can be . 
Personally I think the government had no business interfering in 
business on the side of microsofts'' competitors.
    Leave Microsoft alone or at least don't be a tool of AOL, 
Oracle, and SUNW.
    Nolan A Lameka
    [email protected]



MTC-00027958

From: jonathon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Count this as one vote against the proposed Microsoft/DOJ 
settlement. I feel this agreement is a bad idea and would not be in 
the interest of computer users. Concrete steps should be taken to 
stop bad business practices. Reason needs to prevail.
    Jonathon Vreeland
    www.spork.nyc.ny.us
    email: [email protected]



MTC-00027959

From: Freddy Thomas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
18203 Max Middleburg Road
Maxville, FL 32234
January 27, 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 opinion of the recent settlement 
between the US department of Justice and Microsoft. I think the 
lawsuits have dragged on for far too long now and have been a waste 
of taxpayer dollars. I am a proponent of free enterprise and the 
government's interference with Microsoft is ridiculous.
    The only criticism of Microsoft could be that their marketing 
tactics are a bit heavy-handed, but that is hardly an antitrust 
violation. The terms of the settlement are harsh against Microsoft 
and should appease all competition. Microsoft will be disclosing 
interfaces that are internal to Windows operating system products. 
They will also be granting computer makers broad new rights to 
configure Windows so that competitors can more easily promote their 
own products. These concessions and more should appease all parties 
involved in dispute.
    I urge your office to do what is right for the public and our 
economy and finalize the settlement.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Homer Thomas



MTC-00027960

From:microscopes_sls_svc@
hotmail.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
    Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt 
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
    Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon 
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little 
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft 
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by 
Microsoft: the computer user.
    This is just another method for states to get free money, and a 
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer 
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic 
industry the world has ever seen.
    Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Harold Anderson
    P. O. Box 118
    Falls of Rough, KY 40119



MTC-00027961

From: Ken Valero, Sr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a Macintosh user I feel that Microsoft did nothing wrong. I 
believe what we have here is envy of Microsoft's competition in that 
they did develop the idea first. Bill Gates had the foresight and 
ambition to move ahead when he did. After all is this not the land 
of opportunity and free enterprise. The competition was asleep at 
the switch and Gates seized the moment.
    Bill Gates and Microsoft should be praised for advancing the 
technical knowledge of computers that we are all benefiting from.
    So, my feeling is that the Federal Government should get off the 
back of all businesses both big and small so that we can make 
progress. It is about time that all entrepreneurs are recognized as 
the people that make this country as great as it is and make the 
economy strong.
    Ken Valero, Sr.
    President K V Associates, LLC



MTC-00027962

From: Liz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:30pm
Subject: Greetings,
    Greetings,
    I feel that the current settlement does not adequately address 
Microsoft's nearly complete monopoly in the United States'' 
computer industry. It also fails to restore competition to the 
United States'' software industry. Please consider rethinking 
the settlement.
    Thanks,
    Liz Loveland
    Somerville, Massachusetts

[[Page 28168]]



MTC-00027963

From: Mark A. Montgomery
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
C/O Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division,
U.S. Department of Justice,
601 D. Street NW. Suite 1200,
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    To: Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
    My name is Mark Montgomery. My background includes being an 
entrepreneur and management consultant who was also an early booster 
to Microsoft dating back to 1981. Since that time, my consulting 
assignments have numbered in the hundreds, including dozens of small 
businesses in networked industries and recently specifically within 
the IT industry cluster.
    I converted our business consulting firm in 1995 into an 
independent tech incubator and lab. My only business partner joined 
our firm in 1997 after working for Microsoft for 17 years. I myself 
trained with Microsoft products to become an NT network 
administrator, programmer, and analyst who has tested every major 
public technology Microsoft produced during the period of this case, 
watching in amazement and sometimes horror at the pace of justice 
when compared to the environment in question.
    I am writing today primarily because circumstances in this case 
may allow me to see more potential areas of damage than others. As 
any of us who have worked in predatory environments know all too 
well, it is rarely what we see that threatens our system, but rather 
what we cannot. In this case, I do not believe that any human is 
capable of identifying even a small portion of the damage being done 
to consumers, much less society, including of course eventually 
Microsoft and their investors.
    I would like to explain some of our attempts to work with 
Microsoft at every level, and the extreme financial stress, 
disappointment and embarrassment a few of their executive actions 
have caused us and others, but the topic today is on the proposed 
settlement pursuant to the Tunney Act. I have carefully studied the 
proposed settlement as well as every document filed in this case 
since the beginning of the trial. In the early stages of the case, I 
provided analysis for the members of our global digital network.
    In addition, I may have been the first to publicly label 
Microsoft a threat to the global economy, one of the most difficult 
declarations of my career that may also partially account for our 
failure in attracting external funding to our ventures.
    For me, this case represents a test of the very credibility of 
the U.S. justice system. Although the case history has been 
difficult, and I have not always agreed with the rulings or conduct 
of the court, the system credibility was from my view in a recovery 
phase until the USDOJ agreed to settle as proposed. The agreement of 
the USDOJ to settle on the proposed grounds is where the system 
broke down entirely. I'll leave it to others to speculate and/or 
determine why.
    The proposed settlement is a disgrace and an insult to those of 
us who risked everything we had, and often lost, to speak out 
against what I believe ranks among the most dangerous threats to the 
future of the world in our time; the ability of innovative 
technology to be conceived, hatched, and reach maturity. I fear that 
if the proposed settlement is adopted, and the EU and Congress also 
fail to restore liberty within global IT markets, that our creative 
scientific genius will fail to meet the significant challenges lying 
directly in our collective path.
    Therefore, from my perspective, the world simply cannot afford 
to allow the proposed settlement to stand. It would be more 
favorable to risk having an appeal overturned on technical grounds, 
and allow the political process to work (or not), than to suffer the 
stamp of approval from the very entity charged to defend and protect 
us against illegal predatory practices. A portion of the still 
untold story of modern predatory strategy, generally speaking, is 
just how successful preventative efforts have become with respect to 
the invisible potential competition, and that topic is certainly not 
limited to Microsoft. Indeed Microsoft is a nascent latecomer in 
that regard when compared to the more historically entrenched 
vertical industry leaders, revealing another glimpse of why justice 
must be served in this case.
    I submit to you that a just conclusion to this case is entirely 
possible, but a negotiated settlement that provides justice may not 
be.
    Thank you for your consideration of my views, and God's speed in 
your work.
    Mark A. Montgomery
    Founder/CEO
    Global Web Interactive Network LLC



MTC-00027964

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft, US Justice Department
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I'm glad that a settlement was reached in the antitrust case 
between Microsoft, the government and nine states. However, I don't 
feel there should have been any litigation in the first place. Free 
enterprise should manage itself.
    Not only has Microsoft agreed to make sweeping changes so that 
to computer manufacturers can configure Windows in order to promote 
competitor software programs that compete with programs included in 
Windows. They've also agreed to not enter into any agreements 
forcing other companies to distribute or promote any Windows 
technology exclusively or in a fixed percentage, except for a few 
exceptions where there isn't any competition anyway.
    It is obvious to me that Microsoft is cooperating so they can go 
back to business and help revive the technology sector of the 
economy. No more action should be taken at the federal level at all.
    Sincerely,
    Raymond Fairbanks



MTC-00027965

From: Don Monk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Case
Please see attachment.
12 Fortune Cove
Brevard, NC 28712-;9101
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I am writing in regards to the settlement reached in the 
antitrust case between the U.S Government and Microsoft in November 
of 2001. I am asking you to support the agreement. I do not believe 
any further measures are necessary.
    As you know, the settlement requires Microsoft to promote 
competition from other computer makers. For example, Microsoft must 
license its Windows operating system to other computer makers and to 
grant them rights to configure Windows to meet other system 
specifications. Furthermore, Microsoft has been required to design 
further versions of Windows in a manner that would make it easier 
for competitors to promote non-Microsoft software within Windows. It 
is my opinion that this legislation is sufficient. Microsoft was not 
dealt with lightly, and I believe that further litigation would be 
less of a productive and more of a vindictive nature.
    I am satisfied that Microsoft has been justly dealt with in the 
antitrust case. Further litigation would no doubt lead to 
restrictions and obligations on products and technologies that did 
not fall within the scope of the case. Microsoft has paid its dues 
to society; now I ask you to let them get back to business. I 
appreciate your taking time to consider my views on the issue.
    Sincerely,
    Donald W. Monk



MTC-00027966

From: I Y
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    I am opposed to such a preposterous solution in regards to the 
Proposed Final Judgment in the Microsoft case. Based on past 
findings the Court of Appeals has found Microsoft guilty of 
violating all rules of the anti trust laws.
    Yet the PFJ (Proposed Final Judgment), the Department of Justice 
throws out these findings, indicting Microsoft on all charges of 
business wrongdoing. More importantly, the PFJ allows Microsoft to 
continue with its monopolistic practices. I strongly believe you 
will receive similar appeals entailing the numerous errors apparent 
in the final settlement. To make a long story short, the PFJ does 
not effectively break up Microsoft. But in fact, permits Microsoft 
to leverage its current monopoly position and expand its business 
into several other technologies markets. In the past most monopolies 
were either broken up or carefully regulated. Why not Microsoft?

[[Page 28169]]

    Severe reprimands by the DoJ do not drastically alter Microsofts 
existing operation methodologies. Time and time again as history 
will show, Microsoft will abuse its monopoly position. Breaking up 
Microsofts business into several parts just might be the best 
antidote to prevent MS from even doing more damage to the industry. 
Therefore I submit to you that the Proposed Final Judgment does not 
solve the Microsoft issue.
    Respectfully,
    Dr. Joseph Ortiz
    1001 Vine Street
    Paso Robles, CA 93446



MTC-00027967

From: Steve Hill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge,
    As a high school student, I look forward to working with 
computers. However, Microsoft's recent tactics and monopolistic 
tendenencies will hurt competition in the computer industry. This 
will cause the quality of computer related software and operating 
systems to suffer. The recent settelement between the justice 
department and Microsoft will allow this to continue.
    Please overturn this settlement.
    Stephen Hill
    66 Hobson St.
    Brighton, MA



MTC-00027968

From: Victor Mieres
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/28/02 12:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Victor Mieres
3914 Caney Creek Rd
Austin, TX 78732
January 28, 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,
    Victor Mieres



MTC-00027969

From: jorge godoy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Setlement
    I'm faxing my opinion today.
    Sincerely
    Jorge Godoy



MTC-00027970

From: Robert Sartin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am against the current proposed settlement of the United 
States vs. Microsoft case.
    I have been programming professionally for 20 years. In 
reviewing the terms of the settlement, I am unable to see how the 
terms will in any meaningful way improve the competitiveness of the 
current environment. The disclosures required by Microsoft are too 
weak and the exemptions too great. It will be trivial for Microsoft 
to continue to keep secret important information and use it for 
unfair competitive advantage. The proposed settlement will 
perpetuate an environment in which Microsoft can, and based on past 
experience will, withold critical information from developers who 
are perceived to be competing with Microsoft. Lack of access to such 
information, generally available for other platforms and 
specifically available to Microsoft and partner teams working on 
similar applications, will prevent a developer from producing 
competitive products. Continued tight bundling and coupling of 
Microsoft's chosen solutions will prevent new entries into the 
market of better technology at lower prices.
    Consumers will continue to be forced to purchase and use the 
solutions provided by Microsoft. The price we pay will be higher due 
to the lack of credible competitive alternatives. Technical 
innovation will be decreased because it will not be necessary for 
competitiveness. Any settlement in this case must include provisions 
that will create a truly competitive environment, including 
competitors in the commercial and free software marketplace, and 
offer a variety of choices to consumers.
    Regards,
    Robert Sartin
    10412 Ember Glen Drive
    Austin, TX 78726



MTC-00027971

From: Faith A Hill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge,
    As a young person, I would like to see growing oppurtunities in 
computer choices in my future. Microsoft is a wonderful company 
staffed by wonderful people, but they are guilty of anti-competitive 
violations. They should be punished according to US laws. If this is 
accomplished, it will provide a better and more competive market for 
me to enter.
    Thank you,
    Faith Hill
    66 Hobson St.
    Boston, MA



MTC-00027972

From: Johan L Lotter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:34pm
Subject: Microsoft
We attach a letter pertaining to the Settlement. Sincerely, Johan L 
Lotter
Lotter Actuarial Partners Inc.
Consulting Actuaries and Project Managers
915 Broadway
New York, NY 10010
TEL (212) 529-;8600
FAX (212) 529-;6297
[email protected]
Web: Iotteract.com
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I have followed the case against Microsoft for the past three 
years, watched media coverage from both sides, and I have concluded 
that Microsoft, in whatever strong-arm tactics they used, should 
never have been punished like this. This is a slap in the face to 
one of the most, if not the most, successful companies in history.
    In my opinion, the Department of Justice has no right to seek 
further legal injunctions against Microsoft. The settlement 
Microsoft has proposed, benefits the competition far more than it 
should. The best thing for this company, the economy, and the 
general public is to settle this case, so that Microsoft can get 
back doing what it does best, fulfilling the computing needs of 
users. Windows is incredible; there may never be a product quite 
like it. I can see how the have-nots want to have a big piece of the 
haves. The settlement certainly gives the have-nots what they want 
without handing over Microsoft.
    I believe that Microsoft is entitled to this settlement in every 
way. It appears to be reasonable to Microsoft and more than fair to 
the competition. Approving this settlement can do so much good for 
the economy, which has been weakened by stresses on our country. I 
passionately urge you to agree to settle this case.
    Sincerely,
    Johan Lotter
    President



MTC-00027973

From: Travis Cramer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am writing to address the issue surrounding Microsoft, and 
their abuse of antitrust laws. In my opinion, Microsoft should not 
be able to abuse these laws. First of all, abusing law is illegal, 
so the corporation is breaking law. Second, the size of Microsoft is 
the closest thing to a monopoly. They have unbelievable power, and 
they are making it extremely difficult for any competition to exist. 
Our government set

[[Page 28170]]

our economy up in such a way to prevent monopolies from forming. 
Microsoft is violating these laws, and that must be stopped. 
Microsoft must be kept under the law, punishment of some sort is 
necessary.
    Thank you for your time on this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Travis Cramer
    1247 W 30th St., Apt. 110
    Los Angeles, CA 90007



MTC-00027974

From: T Mac
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    I wanted to state my objection and the error existent in the 
Proposed Final Judgment. There are several apparent flaws with in 
the final proposal favoring Microsoft. Based on my assessment the 
proposed settlement does not dish out any due justice or punishment 
on the side of Microsoft. At the same time no devices are in place 
to ensure MS compliance to the stated rules enclosed in the 
settlement.
    Although being closely monitored, Microsoft will not have any 
direct supervision to reassure the company complies with the stated 
agreement. A three-man compliance team overseeing Microsoft remain 
in alignment to the stated rules and regulations. This three-man 
oversight team will be composed of the following: one appointee from 
the Justice Department, one appointee from Microsoft, and another 
appointee chosen by the two existing members. In turn, Microsoft 
will control half of the oversight team. All findings by this 
committee will not be allowed into court. The sole purpose for such 
a committee is to inform the Justice Department of all infractions 
committed by Microsoft. Subsequently the Justice Depart will launch 
its own investigation into the matter and commence litigation to 
halt all infractions. When all is said and done, the oversight 
committee is just window dressing. In turn, who will not strictly 
oversee Microsofts business moves? In my opinion, the Proposed Final 
Judgment does not provide sufficient and appropriate restrictions or 
penalties against Microsoft. What reassurance do we have against 
Microsofts illegal and illicit activities? I can assure you that the 
Proposed Final Judgment does not effectively address the question. I 
object to the Proposed Final Judgment.
    Respectfully,
    Janice Ortiz
    1001 Vine St.
    Paso Robles, CA 93446



MTC-00027975

From: earl g harper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    It is time to stop the harrasement of Microsoft by dragging out 
the legal battle.
    This will not benefit them or us tax payers...only add bragging 
rights to some politcal hacks...and the special interest groups.. 
Enough is enough..let's get on with business and let Microsoft do 
the same.
    Earl G. Harpor
    1430 Regency Drive
    Ft. Collins, CO
    THE HOUSE OF HARPERS
    INDJC
    Numbers 6: 24-;26 & Rev. 14:2



MTC-00027976

From: iBradley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:34pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Dear Renata B. Hesse Antitrust Division U.S. Department of 
Justice and appointed Judge;
    I'll get right to the point, microsoft is about as unamerican 
and anti-competitive and consumer as ever there was a corporation. 
They've lied under oath, they've lied to their customers and they've 
lied to corporate investors. Their total motivation for any and 
everything they do or will ever do is about GREED, cash flow and 
bill gates, at whatever the cost to the consumer and customer. 
They've proven that microsoft suppressed technology by using their 
power and influence to intimidate. USB technology developed by intel 
corporation for one. If Apple hadn't built USB into the iMac when it 
was first introduced and now has become a standard for add-ons, I 
believe it would still be suppressed today. microsoft has never been 
honest with those who've purchased their OS! window's has never run 
or operated as they've claimed. It's not nor has it ever been or 
ever will be secure or stable! xp their latest release has been 
heralded to be the most ``Stable and Secure OS they've ever 
produced! It's better then previous, and that much is somewhat true. 
But it's far from stable or secure. It has failed to live up to it's 
claims. The in-store sales say it all to well, It's selling far 
below previous releases, this is a good sign that the consumer is 
finally seeing microsoft with ``Eyes wide open instead of Eyes 
wide shut! But even so it's to late for those who've bought into the 
lies and are now victims of false marketing and advertising hype. 
The countless virus attacks and hacks to their online service and 
severs, prove their statements of ``Stable and Secure are 
rendered mute.
    I'm not nor have I, nor will I ever be an owner of anything with 
windows as an OS. I don't support anything wintel! (that's a PC 
running an intel processor with window's OS by microsoft) 95% of the 
computer market worldwide uses microsoft window's. 51% or above in 
my estimations would be considered a MONOPOLY! microsoft's .Net, 
licensing of software (taking away ownership and replacing with 
leasing) and Passport initiatives is a clear attempt at Corporate 
slavery and an invasion of our personal privacy! These initiatives 
are DRONE driven! USE microsoft TECHNOLOGY, AND ONLY microsoft! 
Where's the consumer's FREEDOM of CHOICE here? It's already been 
proven what bill gates said when he saw Apples Mac OS with GUI 
(Graphic User Interface). His words go something like this: bill, I 
want it! paul, That's stealing bill! bill, I don't care! I want it, 
this is what I WANT! window's is about 98% similar to the Mac OS. If 
you're familiar with the Mac OS and you saw window's or use it, you 
know all to well that the truth behind window's is Apple's Mac OS. 
To quote a friend of mine's son when he first saw window's 95, 
``It looks just like the Mac's we use at school! He turned said 
Huh! And walked away. If it's that clear to a child, what's wrong 
with the adults in public, political and corporate America?!
    I never have nor will I ever like microsoft! I believe there is 
at the heart of this company, something very WRONG and DARK and 
definitely not GODLY! I believe their motives are based and rooted 
in pure corrupt business practices. The only shining light of Good 
within the Black on Black existence that is microsoft, is the 
Macintosh Design Department! There is a saying, ``Sometimes you 
have to go through hell to get to Heaven.'' The only thing 
you'll find on the other side of microsoft is pure darkness. 
microsoft should be hit hard and deep, hit where it will hurt the 
most and that being in REAL CASH outlays in the amount of 33 billion 
dollars. This amount would be for all the States involved in the 
lawsuit, the consumers hurt by microsoft's Monopolistic practices, 
Corporate businesses, some should go to ``Homeland Security 
Initiative and finally 7 billion dollars set aside through a Private 
Organization and distributed for use in Private and Public Schools 
who need it for use where they feel it is best used and on whatever 
OS or Computer (Apple) they deem appropriate for the benefit of 
their Teachers and Students! If microsoft isn't reprimanded severely 
for their illegal activities through REAL CASH outlays that are made 
payable within one year of settlement, and hits them where it hurts! 
They will never stop doing what they do! BREAK the LAW! NOBODY IS 
ABOVE THE LAW! (The Enron disaster is evidence enough for that!) 
microsoft will just keep pushing the envelope of illegal activity, 
simply because they think they can! This time they can't be ALLOWED 
to get off with a slap on the hand, even if those in power say 
``It could be damaging to the economy!'' That argument 
doesn't hold any water anymore! Not after the events of September 
11th and the resulting effects on the economy thus far. In closing; 
I don't hold any respect for bill gates or steve balmer, nor should 
anyone! They haven't earned it as individuals or a company, nor do 
they deserve it! They're not nor is microsoft a Good example of Good 
Business or Corporate ethics for the youth to look up to and learn 
from! microsoft has done everything wrong from a moral and ethical 
perspective. Thank you.
    Take Care;
    Bradley R Johnson



MTC-00027977

From: A. W. Dalgleish co.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:34pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
East Aurora, NY 14052
11738 Liberia Road
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:

[[Page 28171]]

    I am writing you today to inform you of my opinion in regards to 
the Microsoft settlement issue. I support the settlement that was 
reached in November, and I oppose any further action against 
Microsoft at the federal level.
    This settlement is fair and will be sufficient to deal with the 
original issues of this lawsuit. Microsoft has agreed to all terms 
and conditions of this agreement. Under this agreement, Microsoft 
must share more information with other companies regarding certain 
internal interfaces included within Windows and any protocols 
implemented in Windows operating system products. Microsoft has also 
agreed to be monitored by a technical oversight committee for 
compliance.
    Microsoft has done so much to contribute to our daily lives, in 
the office and at home. To stifle or restrict this company would be 
a huge injustice to consumers and will do nothing to stimulate our 
lagging economy. I urge you to support this settlement so 
Microsoft's resources and talent can be fully devoted to designing 
their innovative software, rather than litigation. Thank you for 
your time.
    Sincerely,
    James Jaremka (Microsoft shareholder and registered Republican)



MTC-00027978

From: Bob Blake
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:37pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
13 Ethel Avenue
Peabody, MA 01960
January 27,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Three years ago, Microsoft was brought to trial for antitrust 
violations. I have been of the opinion from the start that this has 
been a false case. Federal antitrust laws are stifling in a global 
market. Microsoft has never presented a threat to the consumer by 
using its market dominance to raise prices or to offer a shoddy 
product. Microsoft would never have been so successful if the 
consumer had not been satisfied with its actions. Now Microsoft's 
competitors are upset because they are unable to pry consumers away 
from Microsoft. They instigated the case in the first place, and now 
they are seeking to overturn the settlement and bring additional 
litigation against Microsoft.
    I do not believe it is necessary to bring additional litigation 
against Microsoft. By doing so, these states are essentially 
crippling America. Foreign competitors are not subject to the same 
laws that American businesses are, and all this infighting is making 
the American market vulnerable to foreign interests.
    Putting reins on Microsoft's behavior is the same as encouraging 
foreign competitors to step in. The settlement should be finalized 
as soon as possible, for the good of the economy, the industry, and 
the consumer. The settlement allows Microsoft to remain intact, 
which is, I believe, wise. It also gives Microsoft's competitors a 
chance to work with Microsoft as well as compete directly. For 
example, Microsoft has agreed to provide its competitors with source 
code integral to the Windows operating system so that they will be 
able to operate within the Microsoft framework. Microsoft also plans 
to reformat upcoming versions of Windows so that the operating 
system will support non-Microsoft software.
    Microsoft's competitors are not going to gain any greater 
advantage by continuing litigation. In fact, it is quite possible 
that they will end up doing America more harm than good. I ask you 
to support the finalization of the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Blake Jr



MTC-00027979

From: peter kloss (BITS)
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 12:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The following is the personal opinion of Peter B Kloss and is 
not the opinion in any shape or form of his employers, the BBSRC 
(Biotechnology and Bioscience IT Services)
    Dear Sir
    I do not know whether non US nationals are allowed to comment on 
this case. however, what happens in this case will have an enormous 
influence on what happens elsewhere, so I hope I am permitted to 
comment.
    I am concerned that the settlement will not do what it is 
intended to do, that is, restrict the predatory behaviour of 
Microsoft. The nature of the exception clauses in the current 
agreement makes it possible for MS to continue to do whatever they 
want without hindrance. I think this is a bad thing to do and a bad 
message to give.
    It is important that while Microsoft have this overarching 
dominant postion that the interests of the public and consumer are 
properly protected. This is particularly in the area of 
choice--;Microsoft have continually complained that restrictions 
on them will inhibit ``innovation'' and choice. however, 
history teaches us that Microsoft have hardly ever innovated and 
have acted in a way to restrict choice for OEMs, business customers 
and consumers like to their advantage.
    Let us take innovation: It is true that most OS and application 
``innovations'' have been either bought in or copied from 
third parties:
    DOS--;bought from a third party
    Windows (the concept)--;from Xerox and Apple
    Excel--;bought in from a third party
    Windows 95 GUI details--;copied from Apple in many places 
(eg the keyboard short cuts)
    Explorer, Web Browsing--;copied the concept from NCSA, 
Netscape etc
    Additional features in windows XP such as CD burning, camera 
connection and video editing--;a straight copy of advanced 
features in Apple's MacOS
    As for choice: In most respects Microsoft's leveraging of their 
position has restricted choice by squeezing out competitors and 
competing products.
    A loss strongly felt personally was that Aldus once made an 
excellent presentation package called Persuasion. It is now a 
discontinued product because Aldus could not justify continuing 
marketing and developing the product in the face of PowerPoint being 
given away free by Microsoft with MS Office. This is classic 
predatory pricing killing off a product which was superior in every 
respect.
    A more recent case is the free bundling of Internet Explorer and 
Internet Information Server with desktop and Server OS to the 
detriment of competitors such as Netscape and many other smaller but 
genuinely innovative companies. a recent scandal was the attempt by 
Microsoft to block access to their Web sites by non--;MS 
browsers on the grounds that they were not ``standards'' 
compliant. This was strongly contested by suppliers such as Opera 
Software and Microsoft had to grudgingly relent. but this attempt is 
only the tip of an iceberg in which MS try to persuade us that their 
browser is the standard by brute force. This must also be seen in 
the context that both browser and server are notorious security 
risks, in part due to the insecure architecture inherent in 
operating systems and applications supplied by Microsoft.
    Furthermore it is also true that Microsoft devote more attention 
to adding features to their products in an attempt to crush 
competing products than they do to fixing long existing problems, 
for example, Excel still has a number of arithmetic bugs which have 
existed from before version 4 which have never been fixed.
    Even now, Microsoft are attempting to extend their grip in other 
areas to the detriment of consumer and business choice: In the area 
of network validation of personal credentials with the proprietry 
``Passport'' authentication system In the area of video 
streaming delivery with bundling of ``Windows Media 
Player'' to the detriment of Real Inc's Real Player and Apple 
computer's Quicktime (a genuine standard)
    In the area of on-line music delivery by attempting to corner 
the market with windows specific server and delivery technologies In 
the area of home automation and device control with embedded OS 
products I have not even touched on Microsoft's attitude towards 
OEMS, competing OS suppliers etc ..
    This kind of behaviour is structural in a provenly monopolistic 
company. Remedies must be strong to correct this behaviour and I 
urge the DOJ to rethink its compromises to ensure that restrictions 
and punishments are appropriate to yield better behaviour. To be 
truthful, with the current huge market penetration of MS products, 
restrictions will not hurt the company for a long time to come. When 
they do, it will becuase genuinely innovative and superior products 
have taken a hold.
    The fact is that in many areas where Microsoft have obtained an 
almost complete grip of the market they exhibit genuine monopolistic 
behaviour--; such as many price increases forced on business 
users through less favourable bulk licensing schemes recently 
introduced. It is only a matter of time before this is attempted in 
other areas.

[[Page 28172]]

    Microsoft has been legally proved to be a monopoly and to have 
abused its position--;please treat it as such with remedies that 
bite.
    Thank you for listening to me
    with kind regards, Peter Kloss



MTC-00027980

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;000
2002-;01-;28
    Dear Renata B. Hesse:
    I do not believe that the proposed Microsoft settlement is 
appropriate. I believe there are numerous problems, however, I will 
only comment on a couple of items here.
    Without any requirement that Microsoft provide detailed data 
file documentation on its application files (for example, the 
internal format of a .DOC file) there is no hope for inter 
operability between Microsoft and other potential software 
suppliers.
    The same applies to Microsoft's operating system interface. 
Without proper documentation of the interface, all the interface, 
and a constraint that Microsoft may not use undocumented interfaces, 
other software developers will never be able to produce software 
that is competitive and will not be independent of changes made, 
perhaps deliberately, to the os interface that are detrimental to 
the proper functioning of applications.
    May thanks for your time.
    Regards,
    David Beausang



MTC-00027981

From: Joe Brady
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    This lawsuit against Microsoft has proven to be more contentious 
than most would have anticipated. Its effects have been felt in a 
slowing down of consumer purchases of computer products due in part 
to an increased sense of anxiety on the part of the buying public.
    It is for this reason that the settlement recently negotiated 
between Microsoft and the government is good. While I am not too 
familiar with the specific terms of the settlement, other than that 
it mandates changes in the way Microsoft licenses its software to 
OEMs, among other things, since both sides have agreed, then the 
public litigation is at long last at an end.
    I am writing to express my support of this settlement, along 
with my hope that any further federal action will be unnecessary.
    Sincerely,
    Joseph Brady
    President



MTC-00027982

From: Marty Leisner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wish to comment on the Proposed Microsoft Antitrust Settlement 
via the Tunney Act. I'm a professional software developer with Xerox 
Corporation. I have been developing software for over 20 years. I 
have seen the industry change over 20 years--;while the hardware 
has improved by orders of magnitude, software is a mixed 
bag--;some chores are harder to accomplish (and sometimes take 
longer) than 20 years ago. One thing that has changed is the growth 
of the computer industry and the PC on every desk. Almost every PC 
runs microsoft software. I've been following the Microsoft-DOJ 
debacle with interest for years. I develop free software. I try to 
use products which work and which I can customize--;it turns out 
I try not to use microsoft products. I do not want to live in a 
world where I have to use microsoft products to interact with other 
people. I have no problem if microsoft defines file formats and 
networking standards, as long as they are public and correct. The 
proposed settlement does not appear to address this. As a free 
software developer software developer, am I entitled to rights as a 
third party? Software is a new and unique creation. I think its 
important to have a resolution of this case which actually 
encourages competiting products (both free and commercial). Dan 
Kegel's critque is well thought out. I endorse it and urge you to 
read it: http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html
    I also endorse Ralph Nader and James Love's views as: http://
www.cptech.org/at/ms/rnjl2kollarkotellynov501.html
    Thank you,
    Martin Leisner
    332 Shaftsbury Road
    Rochester, New York 14610
    Free Software Writer/User



MTC-00027983

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am forwarding this letter, since I strongly concur with it's 
premise.
    thank you
    Karl Heimberger [[email protected]]
1 VAN DYKE PLACE
STONY BROOK, NEW YORK 11790
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    This letter is in support of the settlement with Microsoft. We 
must stop wasting money on unnecessary litigation and concentrate 
our resources on matters that actually need more action. Let's move 
forward, not backward.
    This settlement allows us to go forward and end the waste. 
Microsoft has agreed not to retaliate against computer makers who 
ship software that competes with anything in Windows. Plus, 
Microsoft has agreed to design future versions of Windows so that 
computer makers and consumers can easily promote non-Microsoft 
software within Windows. Finally, Microsoft has agreed not to enter 
into agreements with other companies to promote any Windows 
technology exclusively. All these will be enforced by a new federal 
government commission.
    The most impressive aspect of the settlement is that it even 
applies to Microsoft products that were not at issue in the lawsuit. 
This agreement is fair and reasonable, and it will clearly prevent 
future anticompetitive behavior. We must accept this settlement and 
allow the IT industry to concentrate on business as soon as 
possible.
    Sincerely,
    Karl Heimberger



MTC-00027984

From: 
[email protected]@in
etgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:37pm
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,
    Joseph Pemberton
    609 Danbridge Drive
    Hixson, TN 37343



MTC-00027985

From: John W. Manhollan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I believe that the proposed settlement is problematic for two 
reasons:
    1. The settlement furthers Microsoft's strangle hold on the 
desktop platform by seeding into thousands of locations where 
impressionable youngsters will have access to only the Windows 
environment and thereby influence their future purchases.
    2. The settlement only benefits a small number of the 
individuals who would have been harmed by Microsoft's blatant 
disregard of the results caused by its business strategy. America's 
school children of today were not the consumers affected by 
Microsoft's practices.
    Thank you for your time and interest in my comments.
    Sincerely,
    John W. Manhollan, Technology Coordinator

[[Page 28173]]

    West Middlesex Area School District
    3591 Sharon Road
    West Middlesex, PA 16159
    v: 724.528.2002 x122
    f: 724.528.0380
    The directions said, ``Requires Windows 98 or 
better.'' So I bought a Macintosh.



MTC-00027986

From: Fred Nugen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a United States citizen, I urge you to withdraw your consent 
to the revised proposed Final Judgment settlement in the United 
States v. Microsoft Corp. antitrust case. The limitations and 
punishments imposed upon Microsoft do not sufficiently restore the 
competitive conditions previailing prior to Microsoft's unlawful 
conduct. The Settlement only prevents Microsoft from future 
monopolistic practices; it does not punish Microsoft for previous 
unlawful behavior. The advantages of immediacy and certainty of the 
proposed Final Judgment are not sufficient cause for abandonment of 
pursuit of further litigation.
    I urge you to pursue litigation of the issue of remedy, whether 
as set forth in the Final Judgement entered by the District Court on 
June 7, 2000, or as one of the other remedy proposals described in 
the Competitive Impact Statement, section (V) Alternatives to the 
Proposed Final Judgement.
    Fred Nugen
    407 W 18th #207
    Austin, TX 78701
    512.478.9617



MTC-00027987

From: Altes, James
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 12:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is my opinion that his is not a good idea, will only increase 
Monoply status of MicroSoft.
    James Altes
    Electronic Publishing Specialist
    The American National Red Cross
    202.639.3236
    [email protected]
    Together, we can save a life



MTC-00027988

From: Thomas Allbee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Thomas Allbee
16870 SW Camino Drive
Tigard, Oregon 97224
503-;624-;9431
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am sending you this brief letter in hopes of adding my 
sentiments to those millions who would like to see an end to the 
Microsoft case. This litigation has stymied an entire industry and 
contributed to our general economic malaise. There is no further 
reason to prolong the resolution of this case. I hope you will use 
your office and influence to see it settled soon. By the terms of 
the proposed settlement plan, Microsoft will endeavor to actively 
undermine its own predominance in the IT industry. It has agreed to 
surrender its past practice of demanding exclusive domain over 
software in its Windows platforms. It has even agreed to render its 
Windows platforms in configurations that invite the use of non-
Microsoft software. It has agreed to open its technology to 
exploitation by its competitors. It has, in fact, agreed to 
facilitate competition.
    These and other concessions validate Microsoft's claim to desire 
an open and fair playing field in the industry. Microsoft deserves 
this settlement and so does the country.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Allbee



MTC-00027989

From: O M
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    I oppose the Proposed Final Judgment in relations to the 
Microsoft case. As one can plainly see, Microsoft continues to 
violate business practices. The Proposed Final Judgment does not 
punish Microsoft for its past violations to the anti-trust laws.
    With out a doubt, Microsoft is guilty of breaking several anti-
trust laws. Under the final settlement, Microsoft is permitted to 
retain most if not all profits gained through their illicit 
activities. Subsequently, the PFJ will not compensate parties 
injured or harmed through Microsofts egregious misdeeds.
    In addition, the PFJ will not take into account all Microsoft 
gains made through its illegal maneuverings. With all due respect, 
the final settlement is basically acknowledging the acceptance of 
Microsofts anti-competitive behavior. What kind of message does this 
send out to the public? I can assure you that the message is clear 
and simple.
    The PFJ encourages big corporations to engage in monopolistic 
and predatory conduct, which in turn is detrimental to the 
technology industry at large. With all due respect your honor, I am 
outraged at such a preposterous proposal that only helps Microsoft 
to remain intact and continue with its unethical practices. In 
conclusion I submit to you my objection to this Proposed Final 
Judgment.
    Respectfully,
    Dr. Marylin Ortiz
    1001 Vine St.
    Paso Robles, CA 93446



MTC-00027990

From: Laura Akers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I oppose the current settlement with Microsoft as not 
acknowledging and supporting the ability of other organizations, 
such as those staffed by volunteers, to compete.
    Laura Akers
    Oregon Research Institute
    [email protected]



MTC-00027991

From: Jeanette Gonzales
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    I'm writing to you as a Supporter the Free Market. Recently it 
was brought to my attention that over the past 3 years every federal 
court that has reviewed the Microsoft antitrust case has found that 
Microsoft repeatedly and aggressively violated U.S. antitrust laws 
and was liable for its illegal conduct. It was also surprising to 
know that the Justice Department had announced that it had cut a 
back-room deal (the Proposed Final Judgement) with Microsoft that 
granted Microsoft a government mandated monopoly that threatened to 
destroy any and all serious Microsoft competitors. How can this be 
allowed to happen? Why here, in a free capitalist country, is it 
permitted to allow a company like Microsoft infringe the rights of 
consumers and competitors everywhere. Men have gone before us, seen 
the issue, and have made a way so that the rights of consumers and 
other competitors were protected. So why now is there an exception 
to the rule to let Microsoft be allowed to abuse antitrust laws?
    Sure the name Microsoft has prestige, and people trust in the 
company's quality, however no good can ever come of a monopoly. That 
is why the Tunney Act passed by Congress is so vital because it 
ensures that all antitrust settlements proposed by the Justice 
Department are not ``contrary to the public interest.''
    Believe me, the public interest wants to see the Microsoft 
Industry put to a stop before it completely wipes out all of its 
competitors--;other defenders and leaders of the free world.
    Sincerely,
    Jeanette Gonzales
    [email protected]



MTC-00027992

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:46pm
Subject: Microsoft comments
    My inputs on the Microsoft matter.
    I am a patent attorney, and I take my responsibilities very 
seriously, of course. I have seen several cases of hackers 
penetrating Microsoft systems, such as at a law firm I was 
associated with until recently. While most attacks seemed to be 
intent on corrupting files, there were some attacks that I am 
convinced could have and may have resulted in data being taken.
    I am unwilling to expose my clients to such risks, especially 
since I believe the Microsoft XP OS has the capability of allowing 
?someone?, such as at Microsoft, to copy data off your system with 
no indication to the owner. I am changing to Linux, and I find that 
most companies that offer software packages that run on Microsoft OS 
systems are discontinuing support for other than Microsoft systems 
(the exception is Apple, which depends on Microsoft investment and

[[Page 28174]]

help for their existence). In fact, since Apple has a Linux-type 
system and IS supported, it appears that the decision by these 
companies not to support other Linux-type systems has no legitimate 
purpose. The companies I refer to that are moving to Microsoft-Apple 
support only are Adobe, the Acrobat product, and the various 
companies that make .TIFF readers. I need both .PDF (Adobe Acrobat) 
and .TIFF for my patent work, and I find that to have them I must 
use an OS from Microsoft. Even Mapquest, where I have been getting 
map data, gives very unsatisfactory results on other than Internet 
Explorer. By unsatisfactory, I mean the results on other than 
Internet Explorer are such as to indicate sabotage of the Microsoft 
competitors.
    I feel I must not expose my clients to the hazards of a 
Microsoft system, but I find that Microsoft, directly or through 
companies that depend on Microsoft, is poisoning all competing 
systems. I hear even WordPerfect, a clearly superior word processor, 
is ?on the ropes? due to Microsoft's tactics.
    I would like to sue Microsoft. Can you provide any help?
    Marion E. Cavanaugh, patent attorney
    720 Promontory Point Lane
    Suite 2203
    Foster City, CA 94404-;4025
    800.954.2277
    650.578.0692
    650.533.4363 (cell)
    650.572.2370 (fax)
    CC:[email protected]@
inetgw



MTC-00027993

From: Dolly Waters
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:45pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement Please read.
    THIS ELECTRONIC MAIL MESSAGE AND ANY ATTACHMENT IS CONFIDENTIAL 
AND MAY CONTAIN ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR 
THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR INDIVIDUALS NAMED ABOVE.
    If the reader is not the intended recipient, or the employee or 
agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are 
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of 
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this 
communication in error, please reply to the sender to notify us of 
the error and delete the original message. Thank You.
    Dolly Waters
    43 Webster Avenue
    Manhasset, NY 11030
    January 25, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft: I did not agree with the federal government's 
decision to sue Microsoft, and I am glad to see the two sides have 
reached a settlement. Microsoft is a strong and successful company 
because it develops the best products for the industry, and k is 
time to start spending the government's money on more important 
issues than trying to hinder this company's success. Microsoft has 
agreed to change its business operations so that competition will 
increase in the technology industry. The company will design future 
versions of its Windows operating system so that computer makers can 
promote non-Microsoft software within Windows. Microsoft has also 
agreed not to retaliate against computer makers that ship software 
that competes with anything in Windows. This settlement was reached 
after many long and costly hours of litigation, and extensive 
negotiations. It is fair and reasonable, and k should be finalized 
as soon as possible.
    Settling now will benefit consumers and the industry, and this 
was what the government sought from the beginning. The American 
economy needs a boost right now, and stopping this litigation is a 
great step in the right direction.
    Sincerely,
    Dolly Waters



MTC-00027994

From: Henning Dalgaard Jeppesen TACDk
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 12:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement I don't agree



MTC-00027995

From: c c
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally-
    I am stating my objection to the Proposed Final Judgment. Most 
honorable one, I implore you to see the true facts in the matter and 
judge accordingly. In the past week it has been brought to my 
attention an interesting development in the case involving the 
Department of Justice and Microsoft. A Final Settlement has been 
reached between the two parties, which will supposedly end the 
never-ending fiasco. Yet astoundingly enough based on my 
understanding and the information provided to me, the Proposed Final 
Judgment would overturn findings by the U.S. Court of Appeals 
indicts Microsoft on violating antitrust laws. After further review 
of the proposed settlement I find it hard to believe the Justice 
Department would withdraw their charges against Microsoft. In fact, 
based on the assessments made on the proposal, Microsoft will go 
scotch free from any charges of wrong doing in the matter. How can 
this be? There are several glaring flaws in the PFJ. However, non-so 
more apparent than allowing an absentee landlord to govern 
Microsoft. With all due respect, the final settlement provides no 
security to restrict MS from breaking any laws in the future. In my 
humble yet accurate opinion, the future governing body, implementing 
certain rules or regulations and forcing MS to adhere by them, will 
not be stringent nor forceful enough to make any dramatic changes. 
Similarly, I am not convinced that these stiff penalties applied to 
MS will ensure the security and future growth of other companies, A 
stiffer penalty and a whole new framework of laws must be 
established to justly punish MS. The Proposed Final Judgment 
abstains from such justification and order. Therefore I object to 
the stated Proposed Final Judgment.
    Sincerely,
    Dr. Romeo Ortiz
    1001 Vine Street
    Paso Robles, CA 93446



MTC-00027996

From: C. Scott Ananian
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I am a graduate student at MIT, and author and maintainer of 
many commonly-used ``open source'' applications[*]. I have 
also contributed code to the Linux kernel that is used by millions 
of people every day. I wish to express my dissatisfaction with the 
terms of the DOJ/Microsoft settlement. It does not, in my opinion, 
serve the public interest and provide remedy for the anti-
competitive actions of the monopolist. In particular, I urge a 
closer examination of how the terms of the proposed settlement 
impact *non-profit* competitive entities; as a case study you might 
want to examine the Apache foundation (www.apache.org), which 
produces the *only* web server which is a real competitive threat to 
Microsoft at this time. The terms of the agreement, by letting 
Microsoft decide what constitutes a ``real business'', 
threaten to exclude independent developers and non-profits like the 
Apache foundation from the disclosures (API and otherwise) which the 
settlement hopes will place a check on Microsoft. In this way, 
Microsoft may actually be able to edge out its last remaining 
competition from the marketplace --;- certainly not the result 
the DOJ intends, and certainly not in the public interest. As an 
independent developer who has written (for example) a competitive 
reimplementation of Microsoft's PPTP protocol *without benefit of 
any information from Microsoft* and who would almost certainly *not* 
qualify for API disclosure however Microsoft decides to define 
``viable business'', I have a personal interest in seeing 
this settlement loophole closed. And on behalf of the many people 
who have used my software, I can state definitively that there is a 
public interest in allowing developers like myself to compete with 
Microsoft.
    Thank you.
    C. Scott Ananian
    305 Memorial Drive
    Cambridge, MA 02139
    [*] More correctly called ``free software'', with the 
``free'' referring to freedom, not to price. In fact you 
are allowed to charge whatever you like for ``free 
software'', provided you do not restrict the purchaser's 
ability to make use of it in various specified ways.



MTC-00027997

From: Tom Gardner
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 12:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Relief
    To whom it may concern:
    It appears to me that a great deal of Microsoft's market power 
comes from its policy of leasing its software and then using the 
copyright laws to enforce anticompetitive requirements. May I 
suggest that Microsoft be required to sell its software and thereby 
relinquish relevent copyright rights, much as a book seller 
relinquishes such rights upon sale of a book. Customers, such as PC

[[Page 28175]]

manufacturers, would then be free to alter Micorosoft products to 
provide additional value to the end using consumer.
    Microsoft will argue that any such alterations to the software 
will then make the product not maintainable and thereby void its 
warranty. While in the limit this is indeed possible, it practice 
most alterations would have little impact upon maintainability. 
Microsoft should therefore be also required to maintain any altered 
product unless and until it can show beyond reasonable doubt that 
such maintenance is an unreasonable commericial endeavor.
    I have participated in the computer industry since 1968 and have 
at various companies been involved in the selling of hardware and 
software to PC manufacturers and PC end users. I testified for the 
people in US vs. IBM on software interface manipulation as an anti-
competitive tactic.
    The opinions expressed above are mine alone, and not necessarily 
those of any service provider enabling the transmission of this 
email.
    Thomas E. Gardner
    (650) 941-;5324
    [email protected]



MTC-00027998

From: Cherry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:48pm
Subject: Microsoft
    I would like to see this suit finalized as soon as possible.
    Sincerely,
    Cherry S. Garrison
    Pendleton, South Carolina



MTC-00027999

From: Jonathan Doughty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
TO:
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
FROM:
Jonathan Doughty
9701 Rhapsody Drive
Vienna, VA, 22181
    I urge you to reject the Proposed Final Judgement (PFJ) and 
replace it with one that is simpler to test Microsoft's adherence 
to, allows for the full range of competitors to Microsoft's 
practices including explicitly addressing open source alternatives, 
and better protects consumers from being the continuing victims of 
Microsoft's monopolistic practices.
    The PFJ does not, as stated in the Competitive Impact Statement 
provide ``prompt, certain and effective remedies for 
consumers.'' Nor will the PFJ ``eliminate Microsoft's 
illegal practices, prevent recurrence of the same or similar 
practices, and restore the competitive threat that middleware 
products posed prior to Microsoft's unlawful undertakings'' as 
also stipulated in that statement.
    Microsoft has shown by past and current monopolist behavior, by 
its tactics of embracing and extending technology in ways that force 
consumers to use and upgrade only its products (e.g., their 
extensions to the Kerberos security protocols), by selectively 
incorporating technology that in some cases it has appropriated from 
competitors into its operating system (e.g., Stac Electronics disk 
compression and Mosaic browser-based technology), and by adding code 
into their operating systems and middleware that unfairly targets 
competitors products (e.g, the DR/DOS code added to Windows 3.1 and 
the way in which consumers were steered away from Kodak applications 
for digital photography in the just released Windows XP) that they 
actively work against consumer choice.
    The PFJ does not ensure ``computer manufacturers have 
contractual and economic freedom to make decisions about 
distributing and supporting non-Microsoft middleware products 
without fear of coercion or retaliation by Microsoft'' because 
it specifically allows Microsoft to enforce ``any provision of 
any license with any OEM or any intellectual property right that is 
not inconsistent with'' the PFJ. One can already find examples 
of a variety of Microsoft End User Licensing Agreements (EULA) in 
which Microsoft has forced consumers and OEMs to accept agreements 
that effectively tie use of Microsoft products to its middleware and 
operating systems and restrict the consumers right to substitute 
competitive technology.
    The PFJ does not ensure ``that computer manufacturers have 
the freedom to configure the personal computers they sell to feature 
and promote non-Microsoft middleware, and ensuring that developers 
of these alternatives to Microsoft products are able to feature 
those products on personal computers, by prohibiting Microsoft from 
restricting computer manufacturers'' ability to install and 
feature non-Microsoft middleware and competing operating systems in 
a variety of ways on the desktop and elsewhere.'' Microsoft has 
already demonstrated they have no intent to adhere to this 
restriction by insisting, prior to the release of Windows XP, that 
their own products be given equal display on the desktop to 
competitive alternatives.
    Finally, Microsoft has shown by its behavior of rushing products 
to market to further extend its monopolies, while continually 
delaying and extending the trials that might restrict that behavior, 
that it has no intention of modifying the past behaviors with which 
it has so successfully eliminated competition and restricted 
consumer choice. The PFJ is riddled with loopholes, more even than 
the 1994 consent decree that Microsoft flaunted the intent of, while 
at the same time providing cover for Microsoft to browbeat 
competitors with the very language that is supposed to protect those 
competitors. For example, the PFJ's wording explicitly excludes 
Microsoft from having to deal with the one consumer alternative that 
Microsoft has recently shown the most fear of, the open source 
movement, by explicitly allowing Microsoft to condition the release 
of documentation of its APIs and communications protocols based on 
Microsoft's own judgement that the third party ``meets 
reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for 
certifying the authenticity and viability of its business.''
    The PFJ states ``Microsoft shall begin complying with the 
revised proposed Final Judgment as it was in full force and effect 
starting on December 16, 2001.'' I believe a court interested 
in ensuring consumers'' choice would agree that Microsoft's 
actions since the release of the PFJ on November 6, 2001 with 
respect to their .NET initiative, their attempts through 
orchestrated ``grass roots'' campaigns to influence the 
outcome of the court and legislative inquiries into their 
activities, the security of their existing products in maintaining 
consumers privacy and Microsoft's lack of ability to protect that 
trust, and their attempts to advance their monopolies into other 
markets (e.g., gaming devices and multimedia) demonstrate that 
Microsoft's is already flaunting the intent of the PFJ just as it 
has in the past flaunted the intent of other consent decrees.
    Jonathan Doughty



MTC-00028000

From: Robert G. Prickett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This vendetta by jealous competitors has got to be stopped. I 
have watched over the years and only commented to friends how 
Microsoft is being attacked by companies who want the U. S. 
Government to make their businesses flourish without working hard 
for it.
    Call the dogs off. They have treed enough ghosts.
    Robert G. Prickett



MTC-00028001

From: Douglas Lewan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
2002 January 28
Douglas Lewan
10 Fredwood Pl.
Matawan, NJ 07747
    Please accept the following comments regarding the Revised 
Proposed Final Judgement published by the DOJ at http://
www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9400/9495.htm .
    I agree with the obvious implied spirit of the Final Judgement. 
However, I believe it fails to truly attain that spirit in practice 
in several ways, the most important of which I discuss below.
    Sections III.D and III.E regarding scheduling the publication of 
APIs and protocols:
    These two sections fail to meet the spirit of the Final 
Judgement in two important ways.
    First, the schedules based on delays of 9 and 12 months 
respectively would place publication of those APIs and protocols 
about halfway Microsoft's own development and deployment cycle. 
Vendors who could benefit from using those APIs and protocols

[[Page 28176]]

would thus only be able to deploy products with them as Microsoft 
has new products looming on the horizon.
    Second, the publication mechanisms specified in those two 
sections remain far too closed to foster competition outside of 
Microsoft controlled circles.
    Publication of APIs as specified in III.D would be only to a 
select audience and only by the purchase of the MSDN (currently at a 
cost of between $1000 and $3000). That publication should be 
entirely public, possibly through a recognized standards body like 
ISO, ANSI or the IEEE.
    Otherwise Microsoft will continue to wield essential absolute 
control over those APIs and their use.
    Similar arguments apply to the publication of protocols.
    With regard to protocols and ``interoperating with a 
Windows Operating System Product'' it should be recognized that 
all file formats used by Windows Operating System Products fall 
under the umbrella of ``protocol''. Interoperability must 
be explicitly recognized to cover any data produced by any program 
on any medium that might be used by any other program for a specific 
purpose. The current phrasing is far too weak and vague to allow 
interoperable alternatives to the likes of Word, Project, Visio, 
etc., all important Windows Operating System Products.
    Section III.J further weakens sections III.D and III.E.
    Section III.J has several flaws.
    First, in it the Department of Justice and the nine plaintiff 
states sanction a policy of /security through obscurity/, an 
mechanism known to be flawed. It is far more secure to allow public 
scrutiny of security mechanisms to reveal the most egregious holes 
before commitment, implementation and use. Consider the work 
regarding DES, AES, Kerberos, etc.; even the theory behind RSA was 
published and widely discussed long before practical implementations 
were made. The possibilities and implications of vulnerabilities in 
the field under such policies are far worse that under published 
security mechanisms. Among other things, fixes become nearly 
impossible: (1) backward compatibility is necessary, difficult and 
counter-productive leading to a false of security and (2) 
deployments of such fixes can never be expected to be complete.
    Second, by not publishing secure aspects of application 
protocols (authentication and authorization), third party software 
can never reach the point where it /can/ use the functional 
application protocols intended by section III.E.
    All in all, sections III.D, III.E and III.J create at best a 
documentary opening of Microsoft products with (1) consequences for 
Microsoft and (2) no improved opportunities for the rest of the 
software industry.
    Thank you for taking my comments under consideration.
    Douglas Lewan



MTC-00028002

From: Kermit Holman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    During the past few years I have followed the DoJ case against 
Microsoft and the difficulty with getting an agreement for 
settlement of the case. In the technology arena this has been 
deleterious to business and the consumer. I believe it is time to 
get this item cleared and get on with the business of computing and 
technology.
    Sincerely,
    Kermit Holman
    holman--;[email protected]



MTC-00028003

From: Ralph Green, Jr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Introduction
    As a software engineer with 25 years experience developing 
software, mostly for personal computers, I would like to comment on 
the Proposed Final Judgement in United Stated vs. Microsoft.
    I believe that The Federal Government is attempting to achieve a 
remedy that infringes as little as possible on the market, while 
trying to stop illegal conduct. I applaud that attempt and think 
that was just what you should have been trying to do. I think, 
however, that the Proposed Final Judgement fails to stop the illegal 
conduct and should be rejected in its present form.
    I am not looking for the federal government to pick winners and 
losers in the marketplace. I want my federal government only to 
ensure that fair competition will let the marketplace decide the 
winners. At the very least, any part of this agreement should be 
neutral in its effect on further entrenching Microsoft's monopoly. 
And since this agreement is supposed to be a remedy for illegal 
conduct, it should lean slightly to the effect of opening the market 
in order to remedy past wrongs. Then, and only then, the free and 
fair market can benefit the consumer.
    As your own Competitive Impact statement says ``The 
District Court held that Microsoft engaged in a series of illegal 
anticompetitive acts to protect and maintain its personal computer 
operating system monopoly, in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman 
Act and analogous state laws.''
    Failures of the Proposed Final Judgement
    1) Section III.D states Microsoft shall disclose to ISVs, IHVs, 
IAPs, ICPs, and OEMs, for the sole purpose of interoperating with a 
Windows Operating System Product, via the Microsoft Developer 
Network (``MSDN'') or similar mechanisms...''
    The problem here is that Microsoft, as a monopolist, is setting 
standards for the industry. For a competitor to arise, 
interoperability must be possible. Restricting this API information 
for the sole purpose of interoperating with a Windows Operating 
System Product only entrenches the monopoly. There is no legitimate 
purpose served by restricting this interoperability to only Windows 
Operating Systems. For example, a competing middleware product may 
ask for these APIs so they can make their product compatible with 
both Microsoft Operating System Product and its competitors. 
Microsoft could refuse and thus their product tying would have 
succeeded in stifling competition. If Section III.D is to have the 
effect of fairly documenting these interfaces to stop the tying, the 
section quoted above should read:
    ``Microsoft shall disclose to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs, and 
OEMs, via the Microsoft Developer Network (``MSDN'') or 
similar mechanisms...''
    2) Section III.E states ``Microsoft shall make available 
for use by third parties, for the sole purpose of interoperating 
with a Windows Operating System Product, on reasonable and non-
discriminatory terms (consistent with Section III.I), any 
Communications Protocol''
    This is a similar failure to number 1, but more serious. These 
communications protocols need to be documented so that any competing 
operating system may use them. Microsoft's monopoly does not 
currently extend to the server market. If Microsoft were to gain a 
server monopoly by the quality of their product offering, that is 
fine. If they gain it by tying the server market to their current 
monopoly, that is the same kind of improper behavior that brought 
about this case. This judgement should not encourage that improper 
behavior and so this section I quote should be changed to read:
    ``Microsoft shall make available for use by third parties, 
on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms (consistent with Section 
III.I), any Communications Protocol''
    3) Section III.G.2 states ``on the condition that the IAP 
or ICP refrain from distributing, promoting or using any software 
that competes with Microsoft Middleware.''
    This is too narrowly drawn and to use a metaphor, confuses the 
cart with the horse. The illegal conduct was the attempt to preserve 
the monopoly on operating systems. Middleware was the tool used to 
preserve the monopoly. Microsoft should not discriminate against 
businesses that encourage the use of other Middleware, but they 
should not discriminate against businesses that encourage other 
operating systems, either. If the phrase ``Microsoft 
Middleware'' were replaced with ``Microsoft Platform 
Software'', this would have meaning. With the phrase 
``Microsoft Middleware'' in place, an IAP encouraging the 
use of Linux, BSD or other competitive operating systems could be 
discriminated against.
    4) Section III.H.2(second 2) states ``(e.g., a requirement 
to be able to host a particular ActiveX control)'' This is a 
terrible example and significantly lessens the likely intent of this 
paragraph. Hosting ActiveX controls is not a technical requirement. 
It is an implementation using a proprietary method. A reasonable 
technical requirement should not necessitate the use of Microsoft 
development tools. The only slightly reasonable point here is that 
ActiveX has been around long enough that there are a few alternative 
tools. I am not sure whether it is possible to build ActiveX 
controls withoutout the use of Microsoft development tools. If it is 
not, ActiveX should definitely go as an example.
    5) Section IV.B.9 states ``prohibiting disclosure of any 
information obtained in the course of performing his or her duties 
as a member of the TC or as a person assisting the TC to anyone 
other than Microsoft, the Plaintiffs, or the Court.''

[[Page 28177]]

    As worded, the TCs will not even be able to communicate 
important information to their staff or other TCs. There is also no 
reason to protect information about improper business practices by 
Microsoft. This should be amended to read ``prohibiting 
disclosure of any proprietary information obtained in the course of 
performing his or her duties as a member of the TC or as a person 
assisting the TC to anyone other than other TC, the TC staff, 
Microsoft, the Plaintiffs, or the Court.''
    6) Section IV.B.10 states ``No member of the TC shall make 
any public statements relating to the TC's activities.''
    This sentence should go. The purpose of the TC is to apply 
pressure to Microsoft to stay within the law. Secrecy does not serve 
that purpose. A better clause would read
    ``The TC shall make quarterly public reports. These shall 
be available on a web pages provided by Microsoft. Microsoft may 
fufill this requirement by hosting the web pages or paying for their 
hosting elsewhere, as long as the web pages are generally 
available.''
    7) Section IV.C.3.h states ``maintaining a record of all 
complaints received and action taken by Microsoft with respect to 
each such complaint.''
    The purpose of this judgement is to end the illegal practices of 
the past. Light must be shed on questionable practices and credit 
should be given to improvements in behavior. These records should be 
easily accessible to all and the best way to do this is the change 
this sentence to read ``maintaining and publishing on a public 
website at the expense of Microsoft a record of all complaints 
received and action taken by Microsoft with respect to each such 
complaint.''
    8) Section IV.D.3.c states ``Microsoft shall have 30 days 
after receiving a complaint to attempt to resolve it or reject it, 
then promptly advise the TC of the nature of the complaint and its 
disposition.'' and will There is no feedback mechanism here to 
ensure that complaints are actually resolved. The complaintant 
should also be notified by Microsoft. If the resolution is 
unsatisfactory, then the complaintant would be prepared to take 
appropriate action. This should read ``Microsoft shall have 30 
days after receiving a complaint to attempt to resolve it or reject 
it, and will then promptly advise the TC and the complaintant of the 
nature of the complaint and its disposition.
    9) Section IV.D.4.d states ``No work product, findings or 
recommendations by the TC may be admitted in any enforcement 
proceeding before the Court for any purpose, and no member of the TC 
shall testify by deposition, in court or before any other tribunal 
regarding any matter related to this Final Judgment.''
    This is completely unreasonable if the issue is a further 
proceeding involving this matter. If the TC finds out about illegal 
behavior, they should have a duty to report it and stand behind 
their claims.
    Conclusions
    The final judgement as it now stands will only make things worse 
for the following reasons.
    1. After this suit is ended, there will be tremendous pressure 
to leave Microsoft alone and see if the judgement leads to a free 
market. If the judgement is a reasonable one, I would join in 
protesting actions against Microsoft.
    2. The failures of this judgement mean that the illegal and 
unsportmanlike conduct of Microsoft will likely continue. Because 
the people who may see the evidence, i.e. the TCs, must keep silent, 
we will have to wait until great harm is done before we will realize 
it.
    3. That means real competition is less likely to get its foot in 
the door and offer real chice to the public. This is what really 
drives me. I think that if Microsoft wins a fair fight in the 
marketplace, then we are all better off. When they use their 
monopoly position to keep entrants out of the market, I think 
everyone but Microsoft loses. I wish Microsoft was prepared to fight 
a fair fight, but their history tells me they won't.
    I really do think kudos are in order on this attempt at a Final 
Judgement. It is better than I expected in many ways. The breaking 
up of the company, as proposed at one time was too great a 
punishment and I am glad to see that solution is gone. In spite of 
my optimism at what I first heard about this agreement, a careful 
reading leads me to say that this proposed judgement is not good 
enough. Because of the significant failures I addressed above, this 
agreement will not serve to undo any past wrongs and I strongly 
believe it will only make things worse. With a few changes, it could 
serve the public interest and not unnecessarily impinge on the 
rights of a great American corporation. If the only choices are to 
take the Proposed Final Judgement as is, or reject it, I say you 
must reject it.
    Respectfully submitted on January 28, 2002
    Ralph Green, Jr.



MTC-00028003--;0005



MTC-00028004

From: Mike Byrns
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Which of Microsoft's competitors has even expressed an interest 
in undertaking the gargantuan task that is writing a desktop 
operating system that could compete with Windows XP? I think we must 
discount the tiny startups like Be, Inc. since they are no more 
positioned to compete with Microsoft anymore than Tucker or Rosen 
Motors was positioned to compete with GM. Both had superior, 
innovative products but were just not realistically positioned to 
compete with GM. Face it, there is just as much barrier to entry 
into any major market as there is into desktop operating systems if 
you are not already a megacorp.
    I think the whole scope of the ``market'' that 
Microsoft has been found to be monopolizing has been carefully 
crafted to make them the the only player. That scope makes Intel a 
monopolist in that market too and by the same token Apple a 
monopolist in the Motorola-based PC market. Look at some of the 
dirty tricks Intel has pulled vs. AMD and how Apple displayed 
undeniable market control in the Motorola-based PC market--; it 
allowed Mac clone vendors to exist and then immediately when Jobs 
came on board, it canceled all their licenses and put them all out 
of business.
    To me, the market is for ``personal computing 
devices'' not just Intel-based PCs. It should have included 
Apple and Palm as well. For this reason I think the case has been 
fundamentally flawed from the start and I think it's whole reason 
for being is too. I don't think there would be a case if it weren't 
for competitors in other markets (Oracle, AOL, SUN) where Microsoft 
cannot remotely be considered a monopoly (more like a struggling 
underdog!) playing protectionist politics. Not one of those 
companies has ever made even the slightest indication of intent to 
create a full-featured desktop operating system for Intel-based 
personal computers.
    Their only intent in their friend of the court activity is to 
get back at Microsoft for competing with THEM in their near-monopoly 
franchises.
    If you look at it from that perspective then they are even more 
anti-competitive than Microsoft and certainly more opportunistic.
    The bottom line: Settle this. It was never in the public 
interest. You've already spent too much of my tax dollars playing 
marionette for billion dollar Microsoft competitors.
    Mike Byrns



MTC-00028005

From: Paul Staudenmeier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:54pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
692 Raven Road
Wayne, PA 19087-;2329
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing in full support of the recent settlement between 
the US Department of Justice and Microsoft in the antitrust case. 
Firstly, I do not agree with a lawsuit being brought against 
Microsoft in the first place. Microsoft is not a monopoly, as they 
have never tried to deliver poor quality goods at inflated prices. 
They have at times employed tough marketing tactics, but that is by 
no means a crime in our capitalist society. In fact, I would say it 
is often the only way to be successful, let alone survive, in our 
free enterprise system. Microsoft spent huge amounts of time and 
money to develop excellent products and services. But rather than 
being allowed to enjoy the fruits of their labor, Microsoft is now 
forced in one term of the settlement to disclose interfaces that are 
internal to Windows'' operating system products. This seems to 
violate their intellectual property rights. I hope the settlement 
goes through anyway because I think our IT sector and economy cannot 
afford further litigation. We need our strongest assets innovating 
and trying to grow. I know many others echo my opinion that I work 
and live with. I hope your office takes a firm stance against those 
who want to drag the suit on still longer, and instead strongly 
supports the implementation of the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Paul Staudenmeier
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum

[[Page 28178]]



MTC-00028006

From: bob becker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    The proposed remedy for the Microsoft anti-trust case is a bad 
idea. It does nothing to ensure that Microsoft won't continue to 
force its standards and use of its products by every possible means.
    Bob Becker
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw




MTC-00028007

From: James Houston
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:55pm
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:Diane Feinstein,Barbara Boxer



MTC-00028008

From: v d
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally, I oppose the proposed resolution in 
the MS case, better know as the Proposed Final Judgment. Over and 
above the usual economic risks presented by an unchecked 
monopolist--;rising prices and monochromatic innovation the 
nations computer infrastructure will be increasingly vulnerable to 
attack if a single software system predominates.
    Obviously I am referring to Microsoft.
    Suppose that 80 or 90percent of the world's grain supply came 
from a single variety of corns. We would be faced with the 
unacceptable risk that some single disease, might wipe out an 
enormous portion of our food supply. Having only one kind of 
operating system or one kind of browser would make it terribly 
easier for saboteurs to bring the entire Internet to its knees.
    For one entity, such as Microsoft, to control 80 to 90 percent 
of the market for PC operating systems, Internet browsers, e-mail 
readers, and office productivity software is clearly a significant 
security risk. To then allow that monopoly to actively attempt to 
drive out its remaining competition would hardly be in the public 
interest. Diversity is the key in producing economic prosperity and 
improving the society as a whole.
    It's now up to you, Judge Kollar-Kotally, to decide whether the 
proposed settlement between Microsoft and the DoJ is a correct and 
just solution. However from where I sit, it contains too many 
loopholes to drastically effect Microsoft's behavior, much less 
bring about a certain kind of diversity which would enhance our 
security.
    Kind Regards,
    Eddie Ortiz
    601 Kilpatrick Street
    Vallejo, CA 94589



MTC-00028009

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I agree with it because it is for the best interest of the 
American people who use Microsoft products.
    Juanita L. Lizano
    CC:[email protected]@
inetgw



MTC-00028010

From: Richard Griest
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The Honorable Colleen Kollar Kotelly
U.S. District Judge
RE: U.S. DOJ /Microsoft Settlement
    Your Honor:
    The remedy proposed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) brings to 
mind the Oct. 22nd statement of the SEC chairman Harvey Pitt, 
``the SEC would henceforth be a kindler and gentler place for 
accountants. We all know what a disaster this attitude has resulted 
in, the Enron scandal. That DOJ would accept the settlement it has, 
shows that either they don't understand the impact software has in a 
modern economy or they don't understand the way that Microsoft 
exerts a negative influence as a monopolist. This settlement is 
definitely not in the public interest. I use software everyday on my 
job, as a controls engineer, in factory automation. Over the past 
two decades I have seen the software get more complex by an order of 
magnitude, requiring faster and faster computers just break even, 
with little increase in accomplishment. Increasingly you spend more 
time getting your operating systems and interfaces to work than you 
do actually writing the ladder logic that controls the motions and 
cycles of the factory equipment.
    Personally, I feel the disclosure requirements required by 
Microsoft so that third parties can interface with Windows should be 
identical to that required by U.S. patent office. In the case of 
patents, if you don't publicly disclose enough information so that 
anyone skilled in the art can replicate your invention (interface 
with it in this case), your patent is invalidated.
    Because it is a monopoly, a Microsoft copyright has the same 
effect as a patent, in preventing other people from entering the 
market. Forcing Microsoft to come up with a version of Office that 
would run on Linix as nine states who refused the DOJ settlement are 
requesting, still doesn't solve the problem. The real dollars are 
spent buying the Office product not in buying the Windows operating 
system. So you save $200-$300 by using Linix instead of Windows XP, 
you still have to fork over $500-$1000 to get Microso ft's Office 
for Linix.
    In addition, there should be an anti-churning provision in the 
remedy. We are all familiar with churning in the stock market where 
your broker buys and sells stocks solely for the purpose of gaining 
commissions. This is exactly what Microsoft does when it brings out 
a new version of Windows and forces everyone to upgrade. To prevent 
this, the court should allow only two versions of Windows to be 
copywrighted at any one time, a business version and a consumer 
version. When a new version is brought out, all previous versions 
would revert to the public domain.
    One of the benefits of allowing a monopoly is the 
standardization that it can bring. With Microsoft having so many 
different versions of Windows the standardization is gone. This is 
true both from an operator standpoint and from a software standpoint 
as many programs will only run on one version of Windows.
    Finally let me detail two instances of fraud on Microsoft's 
part. The first envolves the removing of spelling check from the 
Internet Explorer 5 browser with Outlook Express.
    When I downloaded I.E. 5 for free circa 4/28/99 it came with 
Outlook Express 5 version 5.00.2314.1300 for Windows 95. Under the 
tools menu the spelling check was a very useful feature for catching 
errors in you email. Recently I purchased a Dell Inspiron 3800 
laptop that came with Windows 2000 and Outlook Express 
5.00.2919.6700 which has the spelling check feature disabled.
    In any other business this would be called bait and switch. Just 
to call up and ask the software support people at Dell about a 
Microsoft problem like this they want $29 for each question asked. 
Microsoft refers you to the OEM you bought the computer from. Now 
that they have browser dominance Microsoft wants you to fork over 
$500 for Office to get the spell checker you used to get for free. 
And with a Justice Department that ``hears no evil'', 
``sees no evil'' and ``speaks no evil'' they get 
away with it.
    The second instance of fraud involves the removal of QBasic from 
Windows 200 0. If a person goes to a car showroom and sees an engine 
listed on the sticker, buys the car and then subsequently finds out 
it has no engine, he would have little trouble in sending that 
dealer to jail. Yet when Microsoft does the same thing the DOJ just 
looks the other way.
    The contents of the help file is the sofware equivalent to an 
automobile window sticker.

[[Page 28179]]

The help file for Windows 2000 clearly shows that QBasic is included 
as part of the product.
    When you inquire the Microsoft knowldge base as to why QBasic 
isn't on your CD rom it suggests copying it from an NT CD rom. In as 
much as not all people with Windows 2000 have legally purchased 
Windows NT, Microsoft is clearly guilty of conspiracy to get people 
to violate the copyright act by making these suggestions.
    In as much as DOJ's knowledge of computers seems limited, let me 
elaborate on the significance of leaving out QBasic. A computer 
operating system such as Windows 2000 can do nothing towards solving 
problems, which is the reason most computers are purchased. Without 
QBasic or some other additional software your computer is a $3000 
piece of junk. Deleting QBasic is another example of Microsoft's 
bait and switch. QBasic was part of Windows NT, and it says right on 
the Windows 2000 boot up screen ``based on Windows NT'' 
Yet QBasic is gone. What Microsoft is doing here is described in the 
Wall Street Journal article ``Technology Grows Up'' by 
Walter S. Mossberg 10/25/01 pg B1 ``On the software side a 
similar consolidation and drying up of innovation and competition 
has taken place ....There are two main reasons for the demise of 
boxed software. First, Microsoft has become a brutal monopolist in 
the key software categories squeezaing out competitors.'' 
(pardon the spelling mistakes, Microsoft took my spell checker away) 
So now you have to purchase Microsoft's Visual C boxed software if 
you want to write some code to solve even the simplest of problems, 
like you can on a programable calculator.
    Let me close by saying that it took extraordinary effort to 
locate the address to send these comments to even though I have been 
looking for months. I contacted Sun, several attorney generals 
offices, and my local newspaper's office. I find it significant that 
neither www.pcmag.com now www.pcworld.com felt comfortable posting 
the address on their web sites.
    This kind of fear only a monopolist commands. Something needs to 
be done.
    Sincerely,
    Richard M. Griest
    Nashville, TN
    CC:[email protected]@
inetgw



MTC-00028011

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:56pm
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,
    Don Stevens
    5511 20th Street Lubbock, TX 79407-;2005



MTC-00028012

From: LJ Sweet
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:58pm
Subject: Law suit
    Stop meddling in the competition between competitors. This is 
not for the government to decide this should be settled by the 
consumer let them use the soft wear that works the best and costs 
the least. Let AOL and netscape make a better product.
    Stop whining.
    Drop the law suits



MTC-00028013

From: E G
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    I object to the so-called Proposed Final Judgment in the 
Microsoft case.
    As every one knows, Microsoft continues to violate anti-trust 
laws set in place many years ago. The Proposed Final Judgment goes 
against all logic. Previously the US Court, has found Microsoft 
guilty of breaking the anti-trust laws. However, under the proposed 
final settlement, MS is permitted to retain most of its profits 
gained through their illegal activities. Subsequently, the PFJ will 
not compensate parties injured by the Microsoft debacle.
    Moving forward, the PFJ does not take into account all Microsoft 
gains made through its illegal maneuverings. The final settlement 
basically acknowledges the acceptance of Microsofts anti-competitive 
behavior. What kind of message does this send out to the public? Do 
you think the public will be in favor of such a move?
    I can assure you that the message is clear and simple. The 
Proposed Final Judgment encourages big corporations to engage in 
monopolistic and predatory conduct, which in turn is detrimental to 
the technology industry at large. With all due respect your honor, I 
am outraged at such a preposterous proposal that only helps 
Microsoft to remain intact and continue with its unethical 
practices. I submit to you my objection to this Proposed Final 
Judgment.
    Respectfully,
    Gigi Ortiz
    601 Kilpatrick Street
    Vallejo, CA 94589



MTC-00028014

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:56pm
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,
    Carol Morrell
    1412 Glen Echo Drive
    Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006



MTC-00028015

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:56pm
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, Carol Morrell 1412 Glen Echo Drive Huntingdon Valley, PA 
19006



MTC-00028016

From: Joseph Lin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    I feel the Microsoft settlement before you has serious flaws, 
and I urge you to reject it. Every court has agreed that Microsoft 
has used its monopoly powers to reap unjust profits, yet the company 
is now being allowed to retain those.
    Furthermore, there is no provision to ensure that their anti-
competitive won't continue.
    Respectfully,
    Joe Lin



MTC-00028017

From: Adrian M. Fitzpatrick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I urge you to accept the Microsoft Settlement as it now is in 
the best interest of the public to do so. I think to drag this out

[[Page 28180]]

longer will just cost more in litigation fees which will ultimately 
be paid for by the consumer. Thank You



MTC-00028018

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:58pm
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,
    Dr.Philip Sekar
    Box 29729
    Thornton, CO 80229-;0729



MTC-00028019

From: Brian Gregory (EWU)
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 1:01pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I am an electrical engineer working at a telecom research 
division in Boulder, CO. I am in favor of ruling as strongly as 
possible --;against--; Microsoft in the current case. The 
only step I'd not advocate is breaking the company up. I find 
Microsoft's behavior in the matters being investigated if not 
illegal--;which I'm not qualified to judge--;reprehensible, 
immoral and absolutely un-American. They're every bit as 
manipulative and predatory while hiding behind a panoply of 
legalisms as the worst stories of turn-of-the-century rail barons 
ever boasted. Microsoft is clearly an abusive company and near-
monopoly. If Microsoft is not reined in, it could continue to foster 
and force upon an unsuspecting public, mediocre products that have 
not been properly subjected to the scrutiny and competition of open 
markets. The result will be a country ill prepared to cope with the 
21st-century information age; prone to computer virus infection and 
poor software reliability.
    Punish Microsoft! Share with them some of our pain, please.
    Sincerely,
    Brian Gregory
    Boulder, CO
    303.664.1085
    brian--;[email protected]
    P.S.: Some history
    In this case, the DoJ was accepting public input until Jan 28th 
on the DoJ vs Microsoft case. The DoJ theoretically must weigh 
public opinion before making their final decision.
    CC:'Tom Jones','Kevin Gregory','Home''



MTC-00028020

From: Don Parry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern, my wife Carolyn and I wholeheartedly 
support the Microsoft settlement as presently constituted. Thank 
You,
    Donald S. Parry
    Carolyn S. Parry
    1178 Wood Duck Hollow
    Jacksonville, Fl., 32259-;2932
    904-;287-;7720
    [email protected]



MTC-00028021

From: N B
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    I am object to the final settlement in the MS court case. Not 
only does this go against the findings by the U.S. Court of Appeals 
but, in facts allows MS to go unpunished for past wrong doings.
    The Proposed Final Judgment allows MS to continue its predatory 
practices. My main argument entails the preservation of healthy 
competition. The way to accomplish such a task is by promoting 
diversity with in the business sector. For a single entity, such as 
MS, to control 80 to 90 percent of the market for PC operating 
systems, e-mail readers, and office productivity software (which 
undoubtedly can spread viruses) is clearly a significant risk to 
security. To then allow that monopoly to actively attempt to drive 
out its remaining competition would hardly be in the public 
interest.
    Therefore, I submit to you that the Proposed Final Judgment will 
not solve the Microsoft issue.
    ALL THE BEST,
    Bernie Bonefacio
    951 2nd Ave
    San Mateo, CA 94401



MTC-00028022

From: Rhodes, Vaughn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    I am the former product manager at Compaq Computer Corporation 
who was responsible for the Compaq/AOL deal in 1995. I worked for 
Rod Schrock at the time, who worked for John Rose. You used several 
of my email messages in your case against Microsoft. Name: Vaughn 
Rhodes.
    I HIGHLY object to the proposed settlement with Microsoft. I'll 
go a step further: I have a hard time believing that it is even 
being proposed. It is a gross miscarriage of justice. I know because 
I was at the heart of the project at Compaq that resulted in 
Microsoft sending a letter of termination to Compaq.
    Let me provide some background for you.
    In 1995, I was placed in charge of defining Compaq's consumer 
online strategy. I proposed a relationship with America Online, one 
which was great for America Online, and even better for Compaq. It 
was worth HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN INCREMENTAL PROFIT to 
our business unit. The deal, in a nutshell, involved Compaq heavily 
promoting the AOL service, in exchance for AOL giving Compaq a large 
revenue share.
    Microsoft heard about this forming relationship. They contacted 
us and asked that we work with them instead of AOL, to promote their 
new online service code-named Marvel (now known as MSN, the 
Microsoft Network). We responded the we would be happy to work with 
them, but we would expect them to pay us in a similar fashion to how 
AOL was to pay us.
    Their response? I'll paraphrase: We are Microsoft. We own the 
customer, not you, Compaq. You Compaq have three choices:
    1) Do the deal with Microsoft. We will pay you NOTHING, but 
we'll have a closer relationship, with various intangible benefits 
(wink wink lower price on the OS, etc.)
    2) Cancel the deal and do it with nobody. We Microsoft are OK 
with that.
    3) Do the deal with AOL. WARNING: IF YOU PURSUE THIS OPTION, WE 
WILL PUT
    YOU OUT OF BUSINESS.
    Our team at Compaq reviewed the situation, and concluded that 
Microsoft must be bluffing. They couldn't do it, because it would be 
such a blatant violation of anti-trust laws.
    We decided to proceed with the deal.
    Shortly afterward, Microsoft sent us a letter telling us that we 
were in violation of their Windows Licence agreement, and we could 
no longer sell PCs with Windows installed. THEY WERE PUTTING US OUT 
OF BUSINESS!!!
    Needless to say, we ended up having to redo the deal with AOL, 
dramatically watering it down and making it effectively into a 
nothing deal: no real benefit to AOL, no real benefit to Compaq.
    If this kind of behavior is not a flagrant abuse of monopoly 
power, I don't know what is.
    I would be glad to discuss this further with anyone from the 
DOJ.
    Please contact me at your earliest convenience.
    Thank you,
    Vaughn Rhodes
    Formerly Strategic Planning Manager (and Product Manger) at 
Compaq
    Computer in Houston, TX
    650-;938-;8587 (home)
    650-;279-;6221 (cell)
    [email protected] (work email address)
    [email protected] (home email address)



MTC-00028023

From: Michael McLay
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The comments on the Microsoft Settlement by Dan Kegel [1] 
highlight many reasons for handing down a swift and harsh punishment 
for Microsoft. There should be no negociating this settlement. They 
are at the mercy of the court and should suffer the conseqences of 
their actions. The following suggestion on the nature of the 
punishment has not been

[[Page 28181]]

proposed in any discussions I have seen to date.
    I am concerned that the settlement talks with Microsoft have 
ignored the assignment of a financial penalty. Antitrust law allows 
for treble damages so the court has ample power to punish violators. 
An effective settlement must include a stiff financial penalty that 
is proportionate to the profits that Microsoft gained through their 
violations of the law. The abuse of monopoly power has resulted in 
many billions of dollars in windfall profits to the company. A fine 
of $20-;30 billion would send a message that Microsoft will 
understand. It isn't excessive (it would be less than a year's 
profits) and wouldn't do excessive harm to the company's financial 
health (they have the cash to pay the fine immediately). Anything 
less will be a simple slap on the hands which they will ignore.
    Awarding this money directly to those who where damaged by the 
abuses of Microsoft is not practical. Not everyone registers the 
purchase of the products involved and even if the fine were 
distributed the resulting award would only be a few dollars per 
person. A straight distribution of the fine would have no lasting 
outcome.
    The judgement could leverage the fine against Microsoft to 
strengthen the punishment and benefit those who were harmed. This 
can be done by using the money to set up a foundation to fund open 
source software projects. This would result in a just solution that 
helps those who were damaged directly by Microsoft. Open source 
software is freely available to everyone, so everyone benefits 
equally. Open source software is also the one potential 
``competitor'' that Microsoft still fears. A $20B trust 
fund that assigns matching grants to those who are willing to work 
for the public good would benefit everyone equally and potentially 
help restore competition to the software world. There are many open 
source organizations set up to help fund open source developers. 
Organizations such as the Free Software Foundation [2] and the 
Python Software Foundations [3] would be able to make significant 
progress in projects that otherwise only make progress through the 
voluntary efforts of motivated and highly skilled software 
developers. Imagine the good that would be had by funding 20 such 
organizations with a $1B trust fund. This remedy will do much to 
help restore the market balance, but it will not be sufficient if 
Microsoft continues to control the definition of standards.
    The punishment must also require Microsoft to participate in the 
development and use of open and well documented standards. The 
Kerberose abuse is evidence of their intentions to subvert 
competition. The punishment must prevent them from further harming 
the market though the abuse of standards and secret interface 
definitions.
    [1] http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
    [2] http://www.fsf.org/
    [3] http://www.python.org/psf/



MTC-00028024

From: Bart Locanthi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    A Better Settlement Proposal
    Microsoft was found guilty of violating antitrust law. Microsoft 
has never abided by any previous findings or judgements beyond the 
narrowest definition of the letter. During the various legal 
proceedings, Microsoft continuously demonstrated its contempt for 
the law and its process. The proposed settlement is, more than 
anything else, a license for Microsoft to continue and extend its 
abusive behavior at the expense of the consumer and the industry. 
Accepting the settlement as is would be an outrage. There must be 
punishment for previous crimes. There must be compensation for the 
vast quantity of parties injured by these crimes. There must be 
consequence for continued, renewed, and new anti-competitive 
behaviors. And, there must be a mechanism to deter Microsoft from 
dragging out process, as has been their habit and intent, to outlast 
competitors, judges, and public attention.
    It is with these points in mind that I suggest the following:
    1) Require that Microsoft make public all file formats and APIs, 
past, present, and future, without charge, to anyone who asks. There 
can be no squirm room here, no hiding behind a supposed need for 
Microsoft to safeguard internal secrets. Microsoft has always used 
file formats and APIs as weapons to injure customers and 
competitors, and any loss of business advantage from this 
requirement would be a minimal and fair compensation to the world at 
large.
    2) Implement a penalty schedule to force compliance of Item 1. 
For each file format or API not already published, a clock would 
start at the first request for it, and a fine imposed for every week 
said item it not made publicly available. This fine would increase 
geometrically: a weekly fine would start at $100,000 and be doubled 
and collected each week. The total cost of delay for four weeks 
would thus be $1,500,000, and for eight weeks it would be 
$25,500,000. The fines and penalty schedules for information 
requests would be independent--;by dragging its feet, Microsoft 
could wind up paying several fines at varying penalty levels at the 
same time.
    This geometric increase is essential, as it addresses the 
important issue of time, which Microsoft has always used as an ally. 
Any notion of these fines being ruinous is easily dispelled by two 
points:
    1) all fines can be avoided by immediately complying with 
information requests, and
    2) this is punishment, after all--;Microsoft has no business 
asking for mercy, having always acted with brutality and bad faith 
in their dealings.
    Information may not be witheld for reasons of presentability. 
Or, rather, if Microsoft cares to polish its presentation, or 
disentangle it from, say, strategic business information, there 
would be a known cost for delaying its publication. Again, there can 
be no excuse for non-compliance. Penalties must be exacted with the 
extreme prejudice justified by judicial findings and Microsoft's 
historical refusal to comply with the law.
    It is important that fines be collected as they are incurred. 
There should be no incentive for Microsoft to delay compliance, or 
hope that by running up a huge total fine they might gain public 
sympathy and again escape punishment. On the contrary, delay of 
payment should be met by freezing of their assets and forced 
collection. There can be no fear of enforcing the law--;after 
all, there is nothing that Microsoft makes that is essential to the 
economy. To the contrary, the economy has suffered long enough at 
the hands of Microsoft, and Microsoft needs to learn how to become a 
proper citizen. The hard way, if necessary.
    Bart Locanthi
    [email protected]
    Beaverton, OR



MTC-00028025

From: Jay Chell
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 1:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Monopoly Settlement
    I disagree with the current settlement plan. It will leave the 
fox in charge of the hen house. This settlement will cause the DOJ 
to visit this issue again when things once again get out of hand.
    jay chell
    Manager, Delegated Financial Audits
    phone: 562-;989-;4455
    fax: 562-;989-;5192
    e-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00028026

From: Kenneth Olafson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Lawsuit
January 28, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Since the filing of the Microsoft lawsuit by the Clinton 
Administration Department of Justice, I have tracked the case. I 
believe it was wrong to file the lawsuit and I am relieved that it 
is finally over. We do have the unfortunate situation with some 
renegade Attorney General's around the country, however. Please take 
the settlement and close the case We need to move forward with our 
technology investments and with new ideas and technology. We need 
this case behind us.
    Sincerely,
    F. Kenneth Olafson
    Utah Coalition for Accountable Government



MTC-00028027

From: DJMaytag
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 l:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have to take objection to this:
    ``59. The primary channel through which Microsoft 
distributes its operating systems is preinstallation on new PCs by 
OEMs. Because a PC can perform virtually no useful tasks without an 
operating system, OEMs consider it a commercial necessity to 
preinstall an operating system on nearly all of the PCs they sell. 
And because there is no viable competitive alternative to the 
Windows operating system for Intel-based computers, OEMs consider it 
a commercial

[[Page 28182]]

necessity to preinstall Windows on nearly all of their PCs. Both 
OEMs and Microsoft recognize that OEMs have no commercially viable 
substitute for Windows, and that they cannot preinstall Windows on 
their PCs without a license from Microsoft. For example:''
    Look at today's PCs and try to buy a PC from Dell, HP with both 
Windows and Linux factory installed. You can't. You can get Linux in 
some places, mostly WinMe, but not both. The reason is MS plays a 
clever game. To use a boot loader, if you're a Windows licensee, you 
must use the MS loader. Then, if you read the MS Boot Manager 
license, you can only use it to load MS OSs, DOS, WindowsXX, Windows 
2000. Otherwise you lose your Windows license. This explains why you 
cannot buy a dual boot Windows and a competing OS loaded at the 
factory. If and when the DOJ wins their case for good and winning 
means Dell or Compaq can install competing OS at the factory, MS 
will have to compete on merits. Today, they abuse their monopoly. 
See http://www.befaqs.com/mirror/classic-be/developers/bmessage/
issue01.html for the full article:
    Manufacturing Consent
    by Jean-Louis Gass,e
    Perhaps I should call this column ``Manufacturing Public 
Opinion,'' rather than ``Manufacturing Consent.'' The 
idea for it occurred to me as I read the opinion ``polls'' 
taken right after last Friday's announcement of the DOJ's proposed 
remedies in the MS anti-trust trial. The pollsters found that the 
majority (more than 60%) of the American public is opposed to the 
remedies proposed by Joel Klein's team at the DOJ, working with the 
attorneys general of 19 states. With more than 20% undecided, that 
leaves relatively few people supporting the DOJ's position. Vox 
populi, vox dei? Is the DOJ, which is supposed to fight for the 
people, out of touch with the public good? That's what the pollster-
geist behind the probe would like us to believe. Far from me to 
suggest that this poll is unscientific. Au contraire. It represents 
the real science of manufacturing opinion, preferably by creating an 
avalanche effect. If most people are against breaking up Microsoft, 
it must be bad; therefore, I must join them, and the next poll might 
show even stronger disagreement with the DOJ. What's bad for 
Microsoft is bad for America.
    Let's go back to December 1982. You poll consumers for what they 
want in a personal computers. What do you hear? I want a better, 
faster, cheaper Apple II, or ///, or PC, or CPM system (yes, these 
were still around at that time). A month later, you give public 
demonstrations of the Lisa. The same people now tell you that's what 
they want. B-b-b-b-but, you stutter, that's not what you said last 
month. Yes, no, I didn't know this existed.
    In other words, the consumer had no words, no concept, to deal 
with what was unthinkable at the time but which suddenly became 
describable-and attractive- once seen and touched: a mouse, 
overlapping windows, a bitmapped screen, pull -down menus. I can 
only think and discuss what I have reference points for and, in 
general, I tend to describe the future in today's vocabulary. In 
this case, most PC users have only been exposed to Microsoft's 
lineage of operating systems. As a result, there are few reference 
points for thinking of life with more than one breed of operating 
system and applications.
    Microsoft made sure that an alternative OS such as Be's, Linux, 
or FreeBSD couldn't be loaded next to Windows by PC OEMs. As a 
result, people have no data other than the Microsoft experience. 
They're told that some of the remedies would make the Windows system 
riskier and that applications might not work as well. We have 
something that works, the jack-booted thugs at the Justice 
Department want to make it less than what it is today, so why should 
I be in favor of breaking up Microsoft? Setting aside the 
caricature, the point remains: Microsoft's monopoly practices are 
the very reason why we haven't experienced what a truly competitive 
situation might be like. This is why the poll is so revealing of a 
certain kind of science in manipulating the political situation 
around the suit.
    A Crack in the Wall
    By Jean-Louis Gass,e
    You're the CEO of a PC OEM, delivering some great news to Wall 
Street: ``In an effort to offer greater variety and performance 
to the customer, our factory now installs three operating systems on 
the hard disk--;Windows, Linux, and the BeOS. The reaction has 
been spectacular. Customers love having a choice of OS, and the 
press--;from John Dvorak in PC Magazine to John Markoff in the 
New York Times to Walt Mossberg in the Wall Street Journal--;has 
heralded us for our bold move. This is a great step forward for the 
consumer and for the industry. Oh, and by the way, we lost $50 
million since we no longer qualify for Windows rebates. But it's a 
sacrifice for the common good.''
    You're now the ex-CEO of a PC OEM.
    We know that the Windows rebate scheme exists--;but what 
*is* it, exactly? And why are so many OEMs afraid of losing it? 
Windows pricing practices are closely guarded secrets, so we don't 
know exactly how the rebate is structured, but we can assume that it 
works something like this: The total cost of a Windows license 
consists of a base price offset by a rebate. The base price is set; 
the rebate is flexible, and contingent on the 
``dedication'' of the licensee. That is, the more you 
``advertise'' the product--;through prominent 
positioning, expanded shelf space, and so on--;the greater your 
rebate. This quid pro quo rebate looks innocent enough, and can be a 
useful tool in a competitive market.
    But when you're running a monopoly--;and when it comes to 
out-of-the-box, consumer-grade PC clones, Microsoft *is* a 
monopoly--;``prominent positioning'' and 
``expanded shelf space'' have little meaning. Microsoft 
has no interest in getting ``more'' footage on the OS 
shelf, because they've already got it all. What interests 
them--;the only useful advantage they can ``buy'' (to 
be kind) with their rebate--;is to ensure that no one else will 
get any. So how is ``dedication'' measured? A real-life 
example: We've been working with a PC OEM that graciously--;and 
bravely--;decided to load the BeOS on certain configurations in 
its product line. However, there's a twist in their definition of 
``loading.'' When the customer takes the machine home and 
starts it up for the first time, the Microsoft boot manager 
appears--;but the BeOS is nowhere in sight. It seems the OEM 
interpreted Microsoft's licensing provisions to mean that the boot 
manager could not be modified to display non -Microsoft systems. 
Furthermore, the icon for the BeOS launcher--;a program that 
lets the user shut down Windows and launch the BeOS--;doesn't 
appear on the Windows desktop; again, the license agreement 
prohibits the display of ``unapproved'' icons. To boot the 
``loaded'' BeOS, the customer must read the documentation, 
fish a floppy from the box and finish the installation. Clever.
    One suspects that Linux suffers from the same fealty to 
Microsoft's licensing strictures. Linux is the culmination of 30 
years of development by the Unix community. Surely an OEM can't 
complain about Linux's quality or its price: It's good, and it's 
free. If Microsoft licensees are as free to choose as Microsoft 
claims they are, why isn't Linux factory installed on *any* PC? If 
you randomly purchase 1,000 PC clones, how many have any OS other 
than Windows loaded at the factory? Zero. But what about all these 
announcements from companies such as IBM, Dell, and others? A few 
URLs are supplied here for your convenience:
    
    
    
    
    
    
    If you parse the statements, Linux is offered and supported on 
servers, not on PCs. Another IBM story is that installation is to be 
performed by the reseller on some PCs or laptops, not by IBM at the 
factory. As an industry insider gently explained to me, Microsoft 
abides by a very simple principle: No cracks in the wall. Otherwise, 
water will seep in and sooner or later the masonry will crumble.
    Guarding against even the smallest crack is important to 
Microsoft, because it prevents a competitor from taking advantage of 
a phenomenon that economists call the ``network effect.'' 
The ``network effect'' manifests itself as an exponential 
increase in the value of a product or service when more people use 
it. Applied to a computer operating system, the effect works like 
this: As more people install and use an OS, the demand for 
applications increases. Developers respond to the demand, which 
attracts the attention of OEMs and resellers, who promote the OS in 
order to sell the apps, which attracts more customers... The key to 
all this is distribution and visibility --; in other words, 
``shelf space.''
    Bill Gates understands the network effect well--;he once 
quoted it to me, chapter and verse. In the Fall of 1983, when I was 
still running Apple France, I met with Bill in Paris and we got into 
a conversation regarding the market share limitations of DOS. No 
problem, he said, with the wide

[[Page 28183]]

distribution we enjoy, we'll get the attention of third parties, and 
the marketplace will fix these shortcomings.
    This puts statements by senior Microsoft executive Paul Maritz 
in perspective. In reaction to my claim that Be wants to co-exist 
with Microsoft, Mr. Maritz said (as quoted by Joseph Nocera in 
Fortune Magazine): ``[Gassee is] articulating his strategy for 
entry into the operating system marketplace. But on the other hand, 
I know that Be has built a full-featured operating system, so what I 
believe he's doing here is outlining his strategy about how he will 
initially co-exist with Windows and, over time, attract more 
applications to his platform.''
    Mr. Nocera interpreted Mr. Maritz's interpretation thus: 
``In other words, Gassee's spiel is little more than a trick 
intended to lull Microsoft. But Microsoft isn't so easily fooled! 
Microsoft will never ignore a potential threat to its Windows 
fortress, no matter how slight. The software giant may be in the 
middle of an antitrust trial, but--;as Andy Grove 
says--;only the paranoid survive...''
    [The entire article, part of a court house diary, can be found 
at .]
    Industry sages such as T.J. Rodgers, the CEO of Cypress 
Semiconductors, as well as venture capitalists aligned with 
Microsoft, criticize the Department of Justice's intervention in the 
new Pax Romana we're supposed to enjoy under Microsoft's tutelage. 
Don't compete in court, compete in the marketplace, they say. I'm a 
free marketer myself; I left a statist environment for the level 
playing field created by the rule of law in this, my adopted 
country. A free market is *exactly* what we want. One where a PC OEM 
isn't threatened by financial death for daring to offer operating 
systems that compete with the Windows monopoly.
    We started with a thought experiment. We end with a real-life 
offer for any PC OEM that's willing to challenge the monopoly: Load 
the BeOS on the hard disk so the user can see it when the computer 
is first booted, and the license is free. Help us put a crack in the 
wall.
    Is the Customer King?
    By Jean-Louis Gass,e
    One would hope to answer this question in the affirmative, but 
before I elaborate, some follow-up to last week's column, ``A 
Crack In The Wall,'' along with our thanks.
    Our offer of free copies of the BeOS to OEMs willing to load our 
OS ``at the factory,'' on the hard disk of PCs they sell, 
got a tremendous response. We appreciate the interest in our product 
and we intend to do our best to honor the hospitality extended to 
us. Watch this space or, more generally, www.be.com, for more 
details. For a number of contractual reasons, this offer applies 
only in the US and Canada, not to other countries in the Americas or 
in Asia. For Europe, please contact our VP Europe, Jean Calmon, 
[email protected], for country-by- country details.
    As we collect data from the flow of responses, an interesting 
but not unexpected picture emerges. The OEMs expressing interest are 
the ones who cannot realistically be ``fined'' by 
Microsoft--;that is, lose their Windows rebate. If you pay the 
maximum OEM price for Windows, or close to it, you won't be afraid 
to load Linux or the BeOS on your customers'' hard drives, 
especially if you don't have to account to Wall Street for your 
actions. If, on the other hand, your exposure is measured in 
millions of dollars per quarter, and you are the CEO of a publicly 
traded company, you'll load Windows and nothing but Windows on the 
PCs you sell. More precisely, you might load Linux as the OS engine 
on hardware other than PC servers. In any event, this represents 
only a preliminary look at the returns--;it's too early to draw 
definite conclusions.
    Now, let's turn to the customer in the title of this column. We 
hear that the Windows monopoly is good for customers--;it's a 
standard, there's no confusion, users can rely on a trusted 
foundation for their work, and so on. But how can this be if there 
are so many obstacles placed in the way of a customer's even seeing 
that (s)he has some (limited) choices? I'll take one example of what 
I mean by choices. One overseas OEM announced with great fanfare 
that it would offer some configurations in its PC line with a dual-
boot arrangement: Windows 98 for mainstream applications and the 
BeOS for its natural media uses. Great--;exactly what we 
wanted--;the specialized media OS peacefully coexisting with the 
mainstream platform. Well, not exactly. If you take the machine out 
of the box and boot it, the BeOS is nowhere to be seen--;the 
computer boots only Windows 98. If you read the documentation 
carefully, you'll find out how to ``unhide'' the BeOS. 
Then, through a complicated sequence, you'll finally get to the 
dual-boot situation. Should the OEM be criticized for this state of 
affairs? Again, not MTC.00028027--;0005 exactly. It appears that 
the fear of losing Windows rebates intervened to prevent the 
customer from being offered a genuine dual-boot system. In fact, as 
we verified for ourselves, the steps the customer must perform are 
so complicated that it's much easier just to do the simple partition 
and BeOS installation possible with our retail product, complete 
with a BeOS Launcher icon on the Windows desktop.
    Wouldn't one think that Microsoft behaves, in effect, as if the 
PC belonged to it, rather than to the OEM or to the customer? It's 
is hard to see how the customer and, more generally, the industry, 
benefit if one company decides what's good for all, and what the 
customer should see or not see.
    A Crack in the Wall: Part II
    By Jean-Louis Gass,e
    Some time ago, I wrote a semi-fictional column regarding the 
plight of the CEO of a PC clone company (``A Crack in the 
Wall'' ). At a quarterly business review 
for Wall Street analysts, the CEO extolled his vision: Giving buyers 
more OS choices was A Good Thing. Everything went 
well--;customers loved having Linux and the BeOS installed on 
their system at the factory, next to the classic Windows. The out-
of-the-box experience was great, the options at boot time were 
easily understood and, since customers could delete the system(s) 
they didn't want to keep, this was the real thing, freedom of 
choice--; without waste. The PC magazines loved the move, we 
reaped all the Best Of... awards and generated good will and oodles 
of free publicity.
    Ah, another thing, the CEO continued. The company lost $50 
million dollars this quarter because Microsoft fined us for offering 
other operating systems. Their contract with us gives them the right 
to increase the price we effectively pay for Windows if we offer 
other operating systems. Microsoft even invoked an obscure--;and 
confidential--;clause in their licensing agreement and grumbled 
that we had no right to use their boot manager, or any DOS code, to 
load other operating systems. It's OK for the customer to install a 
boot manager him/herself, but you, the PC OEM shouldn't. As a 
result, they claim we shouldn't offer the of out-of-the-box 
experience I mentioned earlier. Some customer assembly is required. 
At this stage, the CEO has lost his audience--;and his job.
    As I said at the beginning, this is a concoction. But testimony 
is sometimes tastier than what amateur columnists can dream up. What 
we have before us is a deposition by Garry Norris, an IBM executive 
and a government witness in the antitrust suit against Microsoft. In 
his testimony, Garry Norris describes how Microsoft quintupled the 
Windows royalties it demanded from IBM, to $220 million. There is 
some dispute about the exact numbers, but you get the idea.
    How the media treated this is noteworthy. One title read 
``IBM breaks ranks...'' This appears to reflect a commonly 
held belief: PC OEMs didn't want to break a code of silence for fear 
of some kind of retaliation. In private, PC OEMs ``share their 
thoughts'' quite freely. They appear to resent being treated as 
vassals by Microsoft in its use or abuse of its desktop OS monopoly. 
In public, they have to take care of business. Who can blame them? 
Business is competitive enough as it is. Why risk a falling out with 
Microsoft that will result in a competitive disadvantage? As far as 
we know, there is no Antitrust Witness Protection Program, so the 
tension between self -interest and the calculus of common good is 
understandable. This leads to another thought: Why IBM? Is this an 
example of the altruism of an enlightened corporation, or have they 
decided they no longer have anything to lose in the PC business, as 
various rumors have intimated in the past few months? There has been 
speculation--;and denials--;that IBM wanted out of the PC 
business, because it has become too commoditized and it's been 
impossible for them to make a profit. Some have even read something 
of that nature in their multi-year, multibillion dollar agreement 
with Dell. Whatever IBM's reason for breaking the code of silence, 
their testimony could make this phase of the trial as surprise-
filled as the first Three things you need to remember about me:
    1. Alright, alright... I'm a DJ,
    2. I changed my mind, OK? (see http://www.djmaytag.com/name/),
    3. In any case, I'm STILL not a washer and dryer repairman, 
either.
    http://www.djmaytag.com/ <- Home page

[[Page 28184]]

    http://www.djmaytag.com/303/ <- The TB-303 re-release page
    Fortune cookie: Time is nature's way of making sure that 
everything doesn't happen at once.



MTC-00028028

From: Patterson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
VIA E-MAIL
The Honorable Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
United States District Court for the District of Washington, DC
c/o United States Department of Justice
Washington, DC
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly:
    For the following reasons, I feel compelled to add my voice to 
those arguing AGAINST Your Honor approving of the Proposed Final 
Judgment (the ``PFJ'') entered into by the United States 
of America and several of the States as plaintiffs and the Microsoft 
Corp. as defendant (the ``Defendant'' or 
``Microsoft'') in the antitrust case known as U.S. vs. 
Microsoft Corp. Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson found Microsoft guilty 
of being a monopoly and of abusing its monopoly powers, among other 
things, and he ordered that Microsoft be broken up into a number of 
separate companies, as well as other remedies. On appeal, the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, in a 7-;0 decision, 
overturned several of Judge Jackson's rulings and vacated his 
proposed remedies, but the Court of Appeals let one of Judge 
Jackson's core rulings stand: Microsoft possesses monopoly power and 
unlawfully used that power to protect its monopoly. Both Microsoft's 
request to the Court of Appeals for a rehearing and its petition to 
the United States Supreme Court for certiorari have been denied, so 
nothing changes the fact that Microsoft is a monopoly and used its 
monopoly power unlawfully. Now the question arises: What are the 
proper remedies in the case in question? The quick answer is that 
the proper remedies are NOT those set forth in the PFJ. 
Notwithstanding The Honorable Attorney General's pre-nomination 
pledge not to go ``too easy'' on Microsoft, the U.S. (and 
some of the States) and the Defendant have entered into a 
``sweetheart deal'' by entering into the PFJ. Numerous 
financial analysts and computer industry experts agree that, under 
the terms of the PFJ, the Defendant would conduct ``business as 
usual'' should Your Honor approve the PFJ. Too often, we forget 
the purpose of remedies. Sure, there should be a rehabilitative 
component--; i.e., the remedies to be applied should mandate or 
at least encourage the wrong-doer to reform its wrongful ways. But 
that fails to see the forest for the trees. There should also be a 
punitive component--;i.e., the remedies applied should also mete 
out a punishment for the injurious conduct that the wrong-doer 
engaged in, if only BECAUSE there was, in fact, wrongful conduct and 
concomitant harm.
    In the situation before Your Honor, there is no doubt that 
Microsoft, the defendant, is in the wrong (it is a monopoly) and has 
engaged in wrongful conduct (it used its monopoly powers to harm the 
public). The PFJ's terms are simply too generous to the Defendant 
and provide few rehabilitative provisions and little if any 
punishment.
    Right now, being the de facto monopoly in desktop operating 
systems, Microsoft simply has no competition. The same could be said 
of Microsoft's network operating system (at least for the Intel 
platform). Similarly, Microsoft is the de facto monopoly in desktop 
application software suites (i.e., its Office suite comprised of 
word processor, spreadsheet, presentations, database, personal 
information manager, etc., in various combinations and price 
levels). The situation will only get worse and Microsoft's monopoly 
become even greater if the powers that be allow Microsoft to 
implement its .Net and web services strategies. And that is what the 
PFJ allows: Microsoft will make some minor--; mainly cosmetic 
concessions--;to its desktop operating system, but the PFJ 
leaves Microsoft's monopolistic business practices virtually 
untouched. With all due respect, Your Honor should also review and 
take into consideration the Defendant's past conduct when the U.S. 
entered into a settlement with it and tried to rehabilitate 
positively its business practices: Microsoft flouted the spirit (if 
not the actual provisions) of previous formal or informal 
settlements with the U.S. and never really changed its wrongful 
business practices. Out of Microsoft's failures to rehabilitate its 
business practices arose the current antitrust litigation. Looking 
at the situation from another angle, Microsoft had its opportunity 
to ``go straight'' and consciously did not. (For some 
reason, analogies to the criminal side of jurisprudence keep coming 
unbidden to mind.) The Defendant was on probation, if you will, and 
then proceeded to openly violate probation. To add insult to injury, 
the Defendant as probationer is unrepentant about its continued 
wrongful behavior and violation of probation. Has the Defendant 
slowed its openly-stated monopolistic strategies? No! Microsoft 
rushed to market it's newest desktop operating system, Windows XP, 
and is rushing to market its software that implements its .Net 
strategy. In so doing, the Defendant apparently hopes that it can 
``beat the system'' by relying upon and cynically 
utilizing the slow pace of our great system of justice.
    Now is not the time to go easy on the Defendant, Your Honor. 
This is NOT a case of a first offender, Your Honor, where some 
leniency may be in order. Just as I am confident that Your Honor 
would NOT go easy on an unrepetenant repeat criminal offender, Your 
Honor should NOT go easy on the Defendant. In truth, however, the 
only competition Microsoft has is its own internal divisions. The 
network operating systems division vs. the desktop operating system 
division vs. the application suite division vs. the network 
operating system support software, etc., etc. A break-up of 
Microsoft is a perfect remedy in that regard. A break-up of 
Microsoft along product lines provides an appropriate remedy with 
both rehabilitative AND punitive components. I am sure that Your 
Honor is considering all possible options in fashioning an 
appropriate remedy. I am also sure that any remedy Your Honor 
ultimately imposes will be well-considered and carefully crafted. I 
cannot know what the exact terms of Your Honor's ultimate remedy 
will be, but I do know one thing: The PFJ comes nowhere near 
constituting an adequate remedy for Microsoft's sustained and 
egregious monopolistic conduct in the case at hand.
    For the above reasons, as well as those voiced by others, I 
respectfully implore Your Honor NOT to approve the PFJ in the U.S. 
vs. Microsoft Corp. case.
    Respectfully yours,
    Bob Patterson



MTC-00028029

From: James VanAlstine
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:08pm
Subject: Kill Microsoft
    Throughout its existence, Microsoft has been stealing and 
bastardizing the best ideas of true information technology 
innovators. It repeatedly, and still, uses its size and aggressive 
nature to suppress competition ans stifle real innovation.
    Only an aggressive break-up, heavy fines, and constant future 
watch-dogging of this monster monopoly will allow the best and 
brightest of technology innovators to thrive and keep the US at the 
top of the world's high-tech economy.
    Shamefully, the Bush-era Justice Department has lost what little 
spine the Clinton era Justice Department had and is now offering 
Microsoft a sugar coated settlement.
    It's a shame we will one day all be sorry for.



MTC-00028030

From: Tom Laming
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please see the attached letter.
    Thank you,
    Tom Laming
P.O. Box 918
Shawnee Mission, KS 66201-;0918
January 15, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I am writing to voice my support for settling the Microsoft 
case. Like many people, I feel that the matter has run its course, 
and should be resolved as quickly as possible at this point. While I 
understand why people working in the information technology sector 
want different programs and operating systems to choose from, 
average consumers like myself are more interested in products that 
integrate seamlessly. Continued legal action against Microsoft 
inhibits their ability to develop products that integrate simply 
enough for consumers to use without hassle.
    Please settle the antitrust case against Microsoft as soon as 
possible. As a consumer, I support their products and would them to 
be able to focus on developing their business again.
    Sincerely,

[[Page 28185]]

    Tom Laming



MTC-00028031

From: Steven White
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I was just reviewing a few things for any final comments I could 
make on the final comment day, and I came across the point that the 
proposed settlement does not restrict Microsoft's ability to modify, 
alter, or refuse to support computer industry standards.
    I would like to add one thing to that.
    You may have heard of the ``Halloween Document'' where 
a Microsoft staff person outlines ways to squash the open source 
movement (LINUX). One way suggested was to use standards slightly 
altered to Microsoft's advantage, which would, because of 
Microsoft's monopoly position, make them the de-facto standards. 
(Bill Gates wrote once in a Microsoft annual report that ``the 
way to make money is to set de-facto standards.'') This would 
drive the open source software out of existence because, for all 
practical purposes, competing software must work with Windows based 
software.
    Now whenever the question of competition comes up, Microsoft 
likes to point to LINUX and say that they have competition. But the 
proposed settlement makes it legal for them to do just what they 
have outlined as a method for getting rid of one of their 
competitors. Does that make sense?
    Remember that a lot of people are forced to use Windows. The 
common reply to this is that ``no one is holding a gun to their 
heads.'' Of course not, but the effect is the same. Almost 
everyone buying a computer is going to want or need Windows because 
of the need to interact with other computers that use Windows. Thus 
no computer maker can be in business without selling Windows.
    If standards are twisted so that Windows and a competing program 
are mutually exclusive choices, the choice will have to be Windows. 
That is unfair and anti-competitive.
    We must look to the future. The computer industry should be 
based on an underlying foundation of public standards.
    Thank you.
    Steven White
    City of Bloomington
    2215 W Old Shakopee Rd
    Bloomington MN 55431-;3096
    USA
    952-;563-;4882 (voice)
    952-;563-;4672 (fax)
    [email protected]



MTC-00028032

From: Tony Biz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am an independent software developer. I develop software 
products based on the Microsoft platform. Microsoft's operating 
systems, web browser, and other products have become defacto 
standards in the computer industry. This allows us to target our 
products to one platform and reach a broad customer base, instead of 
having to develop duplicate solutions for many competing platforms. 
This reduced software cost and allows us provide additional features 
which are a great benefit to our customers.
    I am outraged at the unjust prosecution of Microsoft. The 
complaint against Microsoft originated not with individual 
consumers, or with Microsoft's partners, but with Microsoft's 
unsuccessful competitors. Failed businesses must not be allowed to 
set the rules for the markets in which they failed. Microsoft is 
being punished, not because it did something evil, but because it 
was too good, too successful, produced too much value for its 
customers. This is a disgraceful inversion of the principal of 
justice. A successful business and its products are no threat to 
anyone.
    The government is punishing Microsoft for producing better 
products at cheaper prices than its competitors. Instead of being 
persecuted for this, they should be congratulated, thanked, and 
honored. The only people who do not like this are Microsoft's 
envious unsuccessful competitors, who are not able to produce 
products as good and as useful as Microsoft.
    This action against Microsoft is impeding progress in the high 
tech industry. Instead of focusing on producing the best products 
for the cheapest prices for consumers, Microsoft must use their 
resources to defend themselves and avoid destruction at the hands of 
our own government. In addition, software developers must waste 
effort developing duplicate solutions because of the uncertainty 
associated with this unjust action against Microsoft. Will the 
government, at a whim, decide that Microsoft does not have a right 
to exist? Will the government arbitrarily decide to stop Microsoft 
from adding features to its products, or discontinue products 
certain products? Unknown.
    It is disgraceful that at a time when terrorists are trying to 
destroy our country from the outside that our own government is 
attempting to destroy our country from the inside but attacking and 
persecuting one of our greatest and most productive companies. 
Microsoft has a fundamental right to exist and control its own 
property. Our government's job is to protect these rights, not to 
take them away!
    Tony Biz
    6130 Buena Vista Avenue
    Oakland, CA 94618
    CC:Tony



MTC-00028033

From: Husker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    DOJ,
    The Microsoft witch-hunt has gone on long enough. This is 
nothing more than a scam in which states hope to obtain money 
without officially raising taxes. Microsoft has already agreed to 
hide its IEx icon from the desktop
    The case against Microsoft is just ?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.
    I urge you to end this debacle immediately
    Mike Kasson
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00028034

From: Donald C. Glegg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft
    I use the microsoft programs all the time and they are made so 
us older guys can understand and use them.
    Please don't keep picking on them. I for one am for them 
100%!!!!!!
    Thanks!!!!
    Donald C. Glegg
    406 N. Coffman Street
    Park Hills, Mo 63601



MTC-00028035

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:10pm
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,
    Kathlyn Messina
    6870 Manasota Key Road
    Englewood, FL 34223



MTC-00028036

From: Chris Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    19414 46th Avenue Northeast
    Lake Forest Park, WA 98155
    January 25, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to encourage the Department of Justice to accept 
the Microsoft antitrust settlement. This case has been stretched out 
over three years; it needs to be settled. Now that there is a 
settlement available and the terms are fair, I think that the 
government needs to accept it.
    All of the major issues in the suit have been dealt with. 
Microsoft has agreed to give computer makers the flexibility to 
install and

[[Page 28186]]

promote any software that they see fit. Microsoft has also agreed to 
release part of the Windows intellectual property to its competitors 
in order for them to develop software that is more compatible as 
well. To settle the suit, Microsoft has agreed to a long list of 
concessions. This list is fair and should be accepted.
    Microsoft, the industry, and the government all need to move on. 
Please accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement.
    Sincerely
    Jesse C. Brown



MTC-00028037

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:10pm
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,
    Kathlyn Messina
    6870 Manasota Key Road
    Englewood, FL 34223



MTC-00028038

From: William Stone
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust case settlement
    Please see attached letter.
    William w. Stone
    82 River Drive
    Appleton, WI 54915
    January 28, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing as a retired American who is in support of 
Microsoft. I feel the settlement reached between Microsoft and the 
Department of Justice was fair and reasonable. There is no reason to 
drag it out further.
    I believe the terms of the Microsoft antitrust settlement of 
November 2nd were reasonable and weft thought out. They require 
significant changes in how Microsoft develops and markets its 
product. Certainly, other computer makers will now find it easier to 
work with other software companies'' software that directly 
competes with Microsoft's Windows system. I'm sure you have looked 
at this matter thoroughly and will agree to end this case soon. I 
believe that revisiting the case is continuing to have a negative 
effect on our economy and slowing its recovery. For the benefit of 
Wisconsin and the country as a whole, I ask you to leave the 
settlement be and go on with the business of the country.
    Sincerely,
    William Stone
    cc: Representative Mark Green



MTC-00028039

From: Thomas Canfield
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:16pm
Subject: 718 Saco Court
    718 Saco Court
    Saint Augustine, FL 32086
    January 24, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The IT industry and the economy have been affected enough by the 
suit brought against Microsoft by the Department of Justice. The 
litigations have wasted time and tax dollars and it is time this 
matter is resolved. I am of the opinion that Microsoft has done more 
than they should have in the first place with regards to the 
settlement. Microsoft has in part, been responsible for the 
stabilization of the economy in the 90's and I feel that they should 
be allowed to continue with their business.
    Microsoft has agreed to conditions that will allow for more 
competition in the IT industry that will in turn benefit the economy 
and the consumer. In order to do this Microsoft will give 
competitors the ability to make software that is compatible with 
Windows, and they will not retaliate against them. Also, they will 
be monitored by a three person technical committee that will make 
sure Microsoft adheres to the terms of the settlement and it will 
also help settle disputes. Clearly Microsoft has done more than what 
they should have to settle this and so should the Department of 
Justice.
    The country's economy and its citizens will benefit from ending 
this whole mess. Microsoft should be allowed to return to business 
as usual. Thank-you.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Canfield



MTC-00028040

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Your Honor,
    I'm writing to voice my objections to the proposed settlement in 
the United States vs. Microsoft case. Microsoft has profited greatly 
from its anti-trust violations, and this settlement would allow the 
company to keep all of those ill-gotten benefits. Furthermore, the 
settlement doesn't prevent Microsoft from wielding its monopoly 
power again in the future. The proposed settlement only serves to 
expand Microsoft's monopoly by allowing them to increase their 
presence in perhaps the only market segment they don't already 
dominate--;the education market. I ask you to reject the 
proposed final judgment.
    Respectfully,
    Connie Deal
    19691 N. 66th Ave.
    Glendale, AZ 85308
    623-;572-;2622



MTC-00028041

From: Tejas Naik
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:13pm
Subject: Comments
    I believe Microsoft should be broken up. This will spur a wave 
of innovation in IT industry and offer consumers choice. It's in the 
interest of consumers/developers. While, there may be a proposal of 
settling a case without breaking up Microsoft, I'm highly skeptical 
that Microsoft which gave such a hard time to DOJ will execute the 
settlement right. The only way to be assured is to breakup.
    Thanks
    Tejas



MTC-00028042

From: Tony Christopher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To DOJ reviewers;
    I believe that the settlement the US government has made with 
Microsoft is a travesty that will allow MS to continue with its self 
benefiting, conquer-all strategies and tactics. And, over the near 
future, uncontrolled, Microsoft will create more injustice that it 
has in the Internet Browser situation. The data for my argument 
comes from looking at the emerging area of standards for personal 
identity on the Internet.
    I work in the area of virtual community technologies and 
services--;see bio link below. I believe that collaboration/
connections among people, worldwide, is one of the most powerful, 
forthcoming benefits of computer-communications technologies. I have 
researched and learned a good deal about the importance of 
``identity'' on the net. Microsoft's Passport system, 
distributed through their pervasive Windows OS, could become a major 
mal-influence in the emergence of holistic identity services. Here 
is the data:
    Gartner Group has recently completed a study of 2100 users of 
online/web services; the study focuses on consumer web identity and 
privacy issues--; http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/
stories/main/0,14179,2830912,00.html Summary: ``Despite 
consumers'' apathy and distrust, identity services will succeed 
because they will be embedded into Windows XP and the Internet 
services that consumers will use. Accordingly, Gartner predicts that 
40 million online U.S. consumers automatically enrolled in identity 
services will use them to access an average of three Web sites each 
month by the end of 2003. ``
    This data substantiates that consumers will lose in the future 
(versus the econometric models likely used in the trial to show how 
consumers have been harmed in the past) if Microsoft maintains as 
one business both the operating system and the application software 
& Services businesses. One of the

[[Page 28187]]

conclusions that can be drawn from Gartner's study/data is that 
Microsoft's monopoly will result in consumers putting up with the 
weak privacy-control that will result with Passport--;whereas 
the data shows that consumers want strong privacy-control. If 
Microsoft were to be two companies where the web services were split 
out from the WindowsOS business more competitive dynamics could 
prevail in the coming generation of net services i.e., Passport 
would have to compete with the Java authentication/identity 
offerings--;consumers would have more choice and more privacy-
control alternatives would likely be available.
    I want to go on record as being strongly against the weak terms 
of the antitrust settlement with Microsoft. They will cause more 
injustice and harm in the future than they have in the past if we do 
not take the current judgment against them to mete out remedies that 
will protect the Internet industrial and consumer participants from 
the force of this conquering gorilla.
    A.J. Christopher
    These views reflect my own personal beliefs and do not represent 
those of my employer.
    Anthony J. Christopher
    Community Practice Manager
    Mongoose Technologies, Inc. www.MongooseTech.com
    Bio: www.MongooseTech.com/RealCommunities/Tony.html
    E-mail: [email protected]
    Phone-Voice Mail: 650-;224-;4567
    CC:Tony Christopher



MTC-00028043

From: Donna Rogers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    I urge you to reject the proposed final judgment in the U.S. vs. 
Microsoft case. Every court has found that Microsoft violated 
antitrust laws, making billions of dollars in the process. This 
proposed settlement would allow the company to keep virtually all of 
those illegal profits! There is also no provision that would prevent 
Microsoft from continuing its anti-competitive behavior. In fact, 
the monopoly is validated and furthered under the PFJ through the 
dissemination of Microsoft software to our schools. And Microsoft 
cannot be allowed to essentially police itself.
    Please vote against the PFJ in the interest of the public.
    Sincerely,
    Donna Rogers
    3522 Pine Ridge Way
    San Jose, CA 95127
    408.729.7468
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00028044

From: Robin (Roblimo) Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    A problem just starting to rear its head in regards to 
Microsoft's desktop monopoly is the company's curent attempt to 
extend it to all Internet transactions through its .NET initiative 
and the accompanying C# programming language that is designed to 
kill Java, JREE, and other non-Microsoft Web interaction tools.
    If it is the DoJ's intent to help Microsoft kill off all 
competitors; to in effect become the sole controller of all Internet 
standards, then the current proposed settlement should be allowed to 
stand. If the DoJ wants to foster computer industry competition and 
innovation, the proposed settlement will be withdrawn, and Microsoft 
will be penalized harshly enough for its past lawbreaking that its 
management will not be tempted to break the law in the future. As a 
U.S. citizen who is employed in the IT industry, I would rather see 
competition than have one company control our entire computing 
infrastructure. I think you will find that my opinion is shared by 
almost all people in this business who do not work directly or 
indirectly for Microsoft. It is sad that the United States 
Department of Justice is not protecting citizens'' interests, 
but has decided to ``lay down'' for a major corporate 
campaign contributor. Apparently the SEC did pretty much the same 
thing for Enron, though.
    I wish I knew a way to root out this corruption, but it's hard 
when both the people who make the laws and the people who enforce 
them are for sale to the highest bidder. Poor America. I fear for 
our future.
    Robin Miller
    206 52nd Ave. W.
    Bradenton FL 34207
    phone 941-;704-;0779



MTC-00028045

From: Robert L. Butler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Robert L. Butler
    99 Woodland Avenue
    Summit, NJ 07901-;2001
    January 28, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    BY E-MAIL
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to give my support to the agreement reached between 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice. I did not support the 
initial lawsuit. This suit was brought more out of political and 
professional enmity than any supposed damage to the consumer, the 
necessary basis for antitrust action. Bill Gates produced a better 
product, the standardization of computer software. Granted, 
Microsoft was aggressive, and at times heavy- handed.
    Microsoft has been chastened though. Both parties agreed to a 
settlement that is, for the most part, fair. Microsoft has agreed to 
open the company up more to third party innovation, has agreed to a 
uniform price list, has agreed to a technical oversight committee, 
and has agreed to interface disclosure. Microsoft is obviously 
trying to meet the demands of the Department of Justice.
    It is time to move forward. We have more important things to 
worry about. We need to put our economy back on track; allowing one 
of our major companies to get back to work is one way to do this. I 
urge you to give your support to this measure.
    Sincerely,
    Robert L. Butler



MTC-00028046

From: richard sonnier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:13pm
Subject: [Fwd: Microsoft kills Real World/Great Plains Classic]
    Reaf World Classic is a ``COBOL'' accounting running 
on many platforms Unix/Ibm Aix / Dos and many others (i.e. any os 
which has Mico Focus Cobol).
    Great Plains Bought Real World.
    Micro soft bought Great Plains in 2001.
    Microsoft scrapping Classic accounting package.
    Microsoft only option to 20,000 customers is you must at extrem 
expense convert to windows based packages?
    Richard L. Sonnier Jr.
    Gulf Central Systems
    800 Mire Street
    Houma, La. 70364
    985-;851-;6674
    800-;367-;3094 (WORK)
    [email protected]



MTC-00028047

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Atty Gen. Ashcroft:
    My wife and I are extremely pleased that the settlement 
agreement which has been reached between Microsoft and the US 
Justice Department. It is my understanding that the agreement is 
currently undergoing a sixty day period in which the public is 
encouraged to provide input on the matter.
    Let me say that we fully support this settlement because it is 
good for the country, the economy and technological innovation.
    Microsoft has accomplished so much and has contributed greatly 
to the success of this great country of ours.
    Please STOP the litigation, enough is enough. Our legal system 
is running rampant and is destroying our Free Enterprise System 
which has made our country great.
    My wife and I plead with you to stop the litigation and settle 
the matter.
    Thank you for your consideration,
    Frank & Francesca Nuovo
    730 Woodcrest Lane
    Monterey, Ca 93940



MTC-00028049

From: Bernard Rogers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Honorable Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    I'm a concerned citizen requesting that you reject the proposed 
final judgment in the Microsoft antitrust case. The public would not 
be served by the slap on the wrist, as Microsoft would lack any 
deterrent from repeating its offenses.
    The proposed final judgment also fails to address the issue of 
bolting software to its operating system that first led to this 
suit. It

[[Page 28188]]

will thus be free to repeat the antitrust violations that have 
earned it billions of dollars a year.
    Respectfully,
    Mr. Bernard Rogers
    3522 Pine Ridge Way
    San Jose, CA 95127
    (408) 729-;7468
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00028050

From: Bill (038) Carol Roberts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Thank you for considering the attached letter.
    W. S. Roberts, Jr.
    2113 Primrose Lane
    Martinsville NJ 08836-;2220
    Home: 732-;469-;0824
    Fax: 732-;469-;0639
    Cell: 732-;245-;8049
    E-mail: [email protected]
    January 28, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing because I am in support of ending the antitrust 
lawsuit against Microsoft. Microsoft's ability to operate under 
normal conditions remains compromised as long as the litigation 
continues, and settling the case according to the terms agreed upon 
in November would be the quickest and fairest way to move on.
    The settlement is a reasonable conclusion to the case and will 
foster market growth for Microsoft's competitors, while still 
assuring the security of Windows. Easing restrictions on computer 
makers who license Windows will ultimately enable those companies to 
offer a broader selection of programs from competing developers. 
Given that, it seems as though the Department of Justice's goal 
would be achieved.
    I am urging you to settle what has already been too long a case. 
The public and Microsoft are ready to put the matter behind them, 
and the government should be as well.
    Sincerely,
    William S. Roberts, Jr.
    2113 Primrose Lane
    Martinsville, NJ 08836



MTC-00028051

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    8 Ramblewood Drive
    Longview, TX 75605
    January 28, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    Wahington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Thanks for the effort and direction that you and your 
departments are taking. My family and I approve of the leadership 
and wisdom that the Bush administration is taking.
    It is my understanding that Microsoft and the government have 
settled an antitrust lawsuit in which Microsoft has agreed to grant 
computer makers broad new rights to configure Windows so as to 
promote non-Microsoft software programs that compete with with 
programs included within Windows. In my opinion, no more federal 
litigation against Microsoft is acceptaable beyond this agreement.
    Sincerely,
    William R. Park



MTC-00028052

From: Catherine Brett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please let the present settlement stand.There has been more than 
enough debate on the subject.



MTC-00028053

From: Christine Rogers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Your Honor,
    Microsoft must be forced to play by the same rules as everyone 
else, and the proposed final judgment before your court fails to 
accomplish that. I ask you to reject it.
    For years, strong-arm tactics on Microsoft's part have cut down 
promising high tech companies and hurt innovation here in Silicon 
Valley. The courts have ruled against Microsoft--;now let's 
bring about a solution that actually causes them to cease their 
anti-competitive activities!
    I am also concerned that Microsoft's monopoly would only be 
broadened by the giving of its software to schools. It costs the 
company virtually nothing to do so, yet the harm to competitors like 
Apple is enormous.
    Please vote against the PFJ.
    Christine Rogers
    3522 Pine Ridge Way
    San Jose, CA 95127
    408.729.7468
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00028054

From: Kevin Clark
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
From: Kevin D. Clark
    191 Mitchell Road
    Nottingham, N.H. 03290
To: Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW
    Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement.
    I am a professional software engineer, with 10+ years of 
experience in industry. During these 10+ years, I have seen 
Microsoft grow to dominate the computer software market. Microsoft 
has achieved this dominance through anti-competitive practices, and 
I have seen many novel and innovative technologies crushed by 
Microsoft, all in the name of furthering Microsoft's iron grip over 
the software market. As someone who is both passionate about working 
in this field, and as someone who tries to innovate in this field as 
well, Microsoft's actions over the last few years are very 
distressing.
    I have read the Proposed Final Judgement, and I want to say 
this: the Proposed Final Judgement will allow many exclusionary 
practices to persist. So, I don't support this judgement. 
(unfortunately, due to time constraints, I cannont enumerate all of 
the ways in which this judgement is flawed--;if you are looking 
for more specific complaints, please refer to: http://www.kegel.com/
remedy/remedy2.html
    I consider the summary of the problems with the Proposed Final 
Judgement on this web-site to be excellent. )
    Please work to fix this judgement. If you leave any loopholes in 
this judgement, there is much precedent to show that Microsoft 
*will* exploit these loopholes to maintain its illegal monololy.
    Regards,
    Kevin D. Clark
    kevin--;d--;[email protected]



MTC-00028055

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let Microsoft do what they do best and let s quit spending tax 
payer dollars to beat the subject over the head. Microsoft may have 
created a monopoly but was there anyone smart enough to come up with 
the better product.



MTC-00028056

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Mocrosoft is largely responsible for the greatest technology 
advance the world has ever seen. MS produces good products at ever-
lower prices. Competitions is alive and well in the 
industry--;others need to just make their contribution and let 
the market buy it or not. The Department of Justice (under President 
Clinton) and the various states Attorneys General are after money 
and power--;let them show what they can produce. So far I havn t 
seen what they contribute. They have not protected the public at all 
rather they inhibit industry advancement. And of course they want 
millions. (Is there any other thought for these guys?) Let them earn 
it in an honest way: hard work and imagination. End the suit 
immediately by taking the least intrusive road out. Microsoft should 
grow or fail by how it treats the American consumer and not by 
dictates by government employees. In fact the failed government 
employees should be forced to relinquish their own pay for all the 
harm they ve done to innovation and to the American public.



MTC-00028057

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has done more to stimulate the economy has provided 
more jobs and contributed more to education than any other company 
or individual anywhere. To say nothing of what they have done for

[[Page 28189]]

technology. This country was built on competition and he epitomizes 
competition.



MTC-00028058

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    With the current state of the economy we need Microsoft 
concentrating on business without the distractions of this suit 
which should have been settled long ago.



MTC-00028059

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The lack of credibility of the Attorneys General opposing the 
Governments settlement is strictly a play for publicity and grubbing 
for money and should not be permitted to proceed farther. I believe 
the Government s acceptance of the existing settlement is 
imperative. Thank you for listening. R. H. Ewald



MTC-00028060

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    please settle with mr. gates perposal so we the tax payer are 
not burdened any further



MTC-00028061

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to urge you to support the proposed Microsoft 
settlement and end this controversy's tenure in the federal arena. 
The United States Government has in past administrations provided 
its citizens with ample evidence of what results when overzealous 
and uninformed public representatives take regulation of successful 
private industry to extremes in the mistaken belief that action 
against private industry will always end in providing a public 
benefit. Past government actions against AT&T have broken a 
national treasure Bell Telephone Laboratories and increased prices 
while decreasing efficiency and customer service in the process. . 
Microsoft must still contend with several states lawsuits but I 
believe it s time and best for all parties to get beyond this 
ridiculous activity and allow everyone to return to the business at 
hand. The settlement will compel Microsoft to open its systems to 
competitors software and use. A committee has been provided in the 
settlement to monitor Microsoft s future business practices to 
assure compliance with the settlement s terms. I believe that for 
the sake of our national economy and the continued success of this 
vital industry this matter should be settled. As a citizen I feel my 
technological future will be enhanced by innovations which work and 
that is what Microsoft is all about.



MTC-00028062

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has been has helped the US & other countries to 
emerge into world leading companies. Netscape & CEO James 
Barksdale was bundling features years ago & was upset with 
Microsoft turning the tables on them when Mr. Barksdale conceded 
engaging in in simular practices & stating He didn t recall. 
Soon after Netscape merged with another company. Who was calling the 
kettle black? During the 1940 s U.S. Steel went through similar 
litigation & settled with- out killing the company as Judge T.P. 
Jackson was trying to do to Microsoft. Who incidentally was not 
qualified to make this decision. I believe this company has suffered 
and paid more than their share through unreasonable and excessive 
charges. The US has encouraged innovation competition & 
development of technologies. This built our country and made us 
strong to prevent any Bleeding Hearts to damage and hurt us such as 
the Ben Laden's. If anyone was wielding a club in these negotations 
it was Apple not Microsoft. Will AOL be next? What about the merger 
between AOL and Time Warner? This changed the competition land-scape 
in one of the most competitive industry in the world. I think it is 
time to reflect and close the litigation against Microsoft before 
the Bleeding Hearts close one of our leading companies in our 
nation.



MTC-00028063

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement (proposed)is still canted toward the government. 
I believe that the millions of $$ spent on this investigation far 
surpasses the $$ value to the consumer. What Microsoft did/is doing 
is just plain good business sense and I don t think they should be 
codemned for that.
    Thanks!!



MTC-00028064

From: t--;[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:18pm
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.



MTC-00028065

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the settlement reached with Microsoft on Nov. 3rd should 
be agreed to and bring this lengthy antitrust case to an end.



MTC-00028066

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Stop persecuting innovative firm



MTC-00028067

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the ruling was fair and serves the best interest of 
both Microsoft and the government.



MTC-00028068

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am very satisfied with the settlement and find no use in any 
continuing litigation. I feel that the litigation could have been 
handled in a much better way and that it was motivated by special 
interests. In any case litigation should end. thank you. Susan Bates



MTC-00028069

From: N M
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    I hereby submit my objection to the Proposed Final Judgement 
agreed upon between the Department of Justice and Microsoft. I 
understand that there are several underlying errors attributed to 
the Proposed Final Judgment.
    One noticeable flaw encompasses an inept enforcement device 
implementing restrictions. The settlement in other words closely 
monitors and screens all of Microsofts business activities. This 
close scrutiny insures MS complies with all restrictions entailed in 
the agreement.
    A three man compliance team will oversee and insure that 
Microsoft comply with the stated rules and regulations. Yet, this 
three-man oversight committee will be composed of the following: one 
appointee from the Justice Department, one appointee from Microsoft, 
and another appointee chosen by the two existing members. In turn, 
Microsoft will control half of the oversight team.
    In the likelihood of any enforcement proceedings, all findings 
by the oversight committee will not be allowed into court. The sole 
purpose of the committee is to inform the Justice Department of all 
infractions by Microsoft. In addition the Justice Depart will launch 
its own investigation into the matter and commence litigation to 
halt all infractions. When all is said and done, the oversight 
committee is just window dressing, who will not strictly oversee 
Microsofts business moves?
    In my opinion, the Proposed Final Judgment does not provide 
appropriate restrictions against Microsoft. What reassurance do we 
have against Microsofts illegal and illicit activities? I can assure 
you that the Proposed Final Judgment does not effectively nor 
sufficiently address the question. In conclusion, I submit your 
honor my objection to the Proposed Final Judgment in the Microsoft 
case.
    Sincerely,
    Adorabell Bonefacio
    951 2nd Ave
    San Mateo, CA 94401

[[Page 28190]]



MTC-00028070

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am amazed by the statements that Microsoft (MS) has cost the 
consumer since I am convinced that I have saved at least 60% over 
what I would have paid without the their operating system. I 
remember the days that the people around me made fun of MS due to 
the fact that the included OS support was so rudimentary. MS has 
designed better built-in support over the years and now the same 
people say it is too good and is driving other people out of 
business. (Browsers have been in all operating systems for 
decades!!) True competitors are having a hard time coming up with 
something better to sell. This is hard on them but does not increase 
the cost to the consumer. If they have a better gidget I have the 
choice of using the built-in capability or buying theirs. A really 
good choice. I can go on and on but I will only say one more thing. 
Given a specific function it is always cheaper to have one designer 
selling to 10 million vs 10 designers selling to 1 million apiece. 
Since it takes the same number of people to design the function and 
each is sold to 1/10th the number of consumers the cost to the 
consumer is 10x the one designer scenario. We have the battle of 
lower cost to the consumer vs more jobs for designers!!
    Sincerely
    Roger Bagwell HW/SW Engineer



MTC-00028071

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    NetScape should spend less time complaining and a lot more time 
designing a program that will make them competitive in the market. 
There has been enough tax- payers Dollars wasted on this already and 
the Court has handed down a JUST ruling so lets get on with the more 
important things--;- Like Enron for instance.
    Sincerely Robert J Reist



MTC-00028072

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    the witch hunt has gone far enough. let microsoft serve the 
public and its shareholders and get out of its way.



MTC-00028073

From: Microsoft ATR
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Consumer choices not government management of innovation are the 
best marketplace regulators. New regulations and unnecessary 
lawsuits against technology companies will stifle innovation and 
result in consumers paying higher prices.



MTC-00028074

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let freedom win out here and get this fiasco over with.



MTC-00028075

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that the proposed settlement between the Justice 
Department and Microsoft is fair. I see no reason to drag this 
settlement out any longer.



MTC-00028076

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    A bunch of jealous idiots trying to destroy Microsoft will do 
wonders for China India etc. I m not from the US and you fools are 
going to really regret losing control of this industry. You can t 
attack the foundation to 25% of your economy without noticing an 
impact downturn layoffs recession mean anything to you.



MTC-00028077

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly support the agreement reached with Microsoft. Let s 
roll em!



MTC-00028078

From: 
leigh--;[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft is a wonderful example of American enterprise and 
achievement. They deserve the thanks of all Americans who care about 
our economy and global competitiveness. It makes no sense to try to 
take away through the legal system what Microsoft has assembled 
through their own hard work.
    Please leave them alone and maybe thank them for doing such a 
good job!



MTC-00028079

From: 
[email protected]@inet
gw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    THE FEDS LET US DOWN MICROSOFT NEEDS TO BE SEVERELY RESTRICTED 
IN THE FUTURE AND PUNISHED FOR PREVIOUS ANTI-COMPETETIVE ACTIONS



MTC-00028080

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    There has been enough court cases. It s time to settle. This 
settlement sounds just fine. Don t keep beating a dead horse..



MTC-00028081

From: 
[email protected]@inet
gw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think it was pure BS to go after Microsoft and spend all of 
the taxpayer s money for what amounted to a political witch hunt. 
Why don t you people look into the health insurance companies who 
are not willing to provide coverage for people who need it. But they 
are glad to take the premiums!



MTC-00028082

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement should be agreed to. The litigation has taken 
enough time and money. Now it is time to go after the gas and Oil 
companies.



MTC-00028083

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time to put this case to bed. It is the job of the courts 
to protect the consumer not competators. From the start this case 
has been all about vicious compititors fighting with each other and 
then attempting to get the Federal and State courts to settle the 
fight for them. The consumer never was harmed by Micorosoft s 
actions but rather was aided by having interconnected working 
program with the operating program making the total computer 
operation more user friendly. If you want to take a shot at a 
company that has harmed and taken advantage of the consumer go after 
AOL Just change the payment method. I do not think that Microsoft 
should be allowed to give equipment and Micorosoft software to the 
schools because this would give Microsoft an advantage over Apple. 
If they have done wrong make them buy Apples computers and Apple 
compatable software. You might also give the schools the right to 
chose Apple or IBM compatable and make Mirosoft pay for it. If the 
court has been unable to prove a monopoly that has harmed the 
consumer than the case should be thrown out and AOL Oracle and the 
rest of the cry babys should have to pay the court costs. As a 
taxpayer I do not think that it is my responsiblity to pay it.



MTC-00028084

From: sandford moser
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to go on record as saying that the Microsoft 
settlement should be accepted right away. I feel that delaying it, 
only makes everything more costly to the public. Court costs 
increase. The cost to Microsoft increases. It becomes a lose, lose 
situation rather than a win, win situation.
    Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
    Sincerely yours,
    Sanford Moser
    21700 Greenfield Rd.
    Suite 271
    Oak Park, MI 48237
    248-;968-;4700



MTC-00028085

From: [email protected]@inetgw

[[Page 28191]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement please settle with mr. gates perposal
    so we the tax payer are not burdened any further



MTC-00028086

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I clearly want the court to accept the settlement. It s fair and 
the litigation has gone on to long.



MTC-00028087

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    When free enterprise and beaurocratic elements collide history 
reveals that the forces and energies of free enterprise and industry 
offers the only viable alternative for progress. The Microsoft 
senario is a storybook example of industrial leadership leading the 
way to beneficial development for enterprises both large and small 
in the scope of macroeconomics. HOORAY FOR THE SETTLEMENT!!



MTC-00028088

From: 
[email protected]@ine
tgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Give it up quit beating a dead horse.Too much money has been 
spent already. Microsoft will just pass the cost to the purchaser to 
defend thier position of free interprise.



MTC-00028089

From: 
[email protected]@ine
tgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    WHERE WOULD WE BE WITH OUT MICROSOFT. I CAN OTHER THINGS A LOT 
WORSE THAN MICROSOFT. MY VOTE FOR BILL GATES



MTC-00028090

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the Federal Government and all other State 
governments should now leave Microsoft alone. The court has made it 
s decision and now we should move on to more important things. Just 
because the competition is jealous that they did not invent the same 
things as those working for Microsoft is no reason that they should 
have any right to capitalize on the hard work of another. I say move 
on there are more important problems to plague this country. Deal 
with them.



MTC-00028091

From: 
das474--;[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Leave well enough alone. this is only going to cost people that 
use computers more mony. Netcape & AOL can be downloaded on any 
computer free.



MTC-00028092

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The ``case'' against Microsoft was, is and shall 
forever be a sham. The ``problem'' is that Gates and 
Microsoft got lucky and their competitors didn't. MS was in the 
right place at the right time and did the right things... the bozo's 
who are suing them didn't luck out. Let the market decide if 
Microsoft is a company that the public wants to do business with. 
Microsoft does not ``own'' the market any more than it 
owns the souls of it's dustomers. People choose Microsoft products 
becasue, despite MS's faults, the products are what it's customers 
want and need and are reasonably priced.
    Let the government do what it does best--;nothing!!
    Dimitri Emelianoff
    CC:[email protected]@
inetgw



MTC-00028093

From: Chris Waterson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    I work for Netscape Communications Corportation, on the Netscape 
browser product. And I am tired of reading uninformed columns in 
newspapers and answering uninformed questions from friends about 
`how Microsoft won the browser war ``fair and 
square'''. Let's not forget that this is not about the 
situation --;as it is today--;, it's about --;what 
Microsoft did that was against the rule of law--;. Microsoft has 
repeatedly flouted the law of the land, and for this, they deserve 
to be punished.
    The settlement fails to terminate the Microsoft monopoly, which 
they have proven time and again to use aggressively and illegally to 
expand into other markets. What guarantee do we have that Microsoft 
will not continue to ``bolt'' new products on to their 
operating system in the name of ``innovation'', crushing 
other fledgeling businesses along the way? How will future 
innovators protect themselves from Microsoft's entry into a market?
    Under this settlement, Microsoft will be only marginally 
penalized for its illegal behavior. Microsoft --;broke the 
law--;--;every court that has reviewed this case has 
agreed--;but yet it will be allowed to retain the profit from 
its plunder!
    I realize that my viewpoint in this matter is far from 
objective, but I hope that you'll realize that the fate of 
consumers, entrepreneurs, companies, and even industries rest in 
your hands right now. Microsoft has proven time and again that they 
have no regard for the law. They are a threat to innovation in an 
industry that has powered the economy for the last ten years, and is 
likely to be a significant economic force for the next fifty years.
    Yours,
    Chris Waterson
    437 Hoffman Ave.
    San Francisco, CA 94114
    415-;642-;3522
    CC:[email protected]&@inetgw



MTC-00028094

From: Robert A. Gerhardt, RFC
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Dept. of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Boulevard NW
Washington DC 20530
January 28, 2002
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am writing as an investor and as one who helps other people 
invest in the American capitalistic system. I note the country has 
had extraordinary difficulties financing the high tech companies who 
are our hope in improving productivity. This all started about the 
time that the competitors to Microsoft goaded the government into 
starting a federal lawsuit. The investing public worried that the 
leading innovator in computer generated productivity improvements 
was going to be attacked and wounded by the government, why wouldn't 
the same happen to others in the industry? This was a major 
contributor to the failing confidence by the investing public.
    I have read about a reasonable settlement that has been 
negotiated between Microsoft and the government. I understand that 
it is under public review at this time. Let me add my voice to the 
millions of shareholders that depend on the American capitalistic 
system to continue to improve productivity, profits and expand. I 
believe that the government has had its opportunity to make its 
point. Microsoft has made good faith adjustments in its operations 
and has agreed to share ``secrets'' with their 
competitors, something the competitors had sought from the outset. 
It is time to lift this cloud of intimidation from the technology 
community and allow our economy to expand once again. I would hope 
that the tragedy of Sept. 11th would help all of us including the 
government refocus on our nation's priorities. It is time to move 
ahead with improving our people's living conditions and maintaining 
our economic leadership of the world.
    Most Sincerely,
    Robert A. Gerhardt
    RG/tes



MTC-00028095

From: Dirk Valcke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    As a consultant in the computer industry I come in contact with 
many people in many different organizations.
    These organizations range from first class Financial 
Institutions to small enterprises with only a few employees. For all 
these organizations and especially for the thousands, even millions 
of small and mid-sized companies Microsoft* provided an easy to use, 
cheap, out-of-the-box usable computing environment.

[[Page 28192]]

    As you probably know and experienced yourself, even a child can 
install and use the Windows* and Office* platforms. To find a 
platform that is as easy to use and that keeps the whole computing 
experience affordable we can only look at Apple*. The giants in the 
industry, especially SUN, could take some lessons in user-
friendliness, ease of use and low-cost from both Apple* and 
Microsoft*. The initiative of the Linux* group seems to go in the 
right direction, but the product is not yet at the level we are used 
to (user interface, ease of use, support).
    When I consider the enormous number of companies and people, who 
earn their living by building on an ever-evaluating platform, 
persons that study these new versions and implement ever more 
complex and at the same time ever easier to use software, I am 
amazed. When I try to imagine the number of people that use these 
inexpensive, easy obtainable systems, at work, at school and home, I 
am amazed. When trying to imagine even the very Internet that 
allowed me to send you this message, without the low-priced, easy to 
use computers, I wonder if it would have been possible!!
    The inexpensive computers and software are a result of volume. 
The volume is the result of popularity. Popularity is the result of 
content and happy users! I hope you advice and ruling will allow 
current and future enterprises to work on even more mind blowing and 
fantastic applications and systems. That it will allow the 
customers/users to benefit from ever more features and 
possibilities.
    With kind regards,
    Dirk Valcke--;Director.
    Advanced Computer Technologies
    Valcke bvba ? Kortrijk Office
    Min. A. De Clercklaan, 35
    8500 Kortrijk ? Belgium
    Valcke bvba ? Brussels Office
    Marktstraat, 46 BUS 8
    1210 Brussels ? Belgium



MTC-00028096

From: arlen-
[email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft should not have been charged in the first place. Our 
leaders tend to encourage less than the best from people.



MTC-00028097

From: 
[email protected]@inet
gw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please leave Microsoft alone. Together we can fight political 
corruption in this country. Thank you a proud citizen



MTC-00028098

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle the suit and then leave Microsoft alone to offer 
new technology to the world markets.



MTC-00028099

From: tomas.palmer@i-
codesmith.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This attack on Microsoft was the cause of our current tech 
recession. If Microsoft competitors cannot not do better then 
Netscape and think Java is the key to the future they deserve to 
lose in the marketplace.



MTC-00028100

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am not speaking on behalf of Purdue University. However as the 
IT manager for the Purdue University School of Education I have 
found Microsoft to be a friend of Education. Microsoft has been a 
friend to Education for many years even while other companies which 
have a reputation for being education friendly have taken advantage 
of Education over-priced their products and given Education little 
or nothing. Unlike other companies that have been hostile towards 
education and ignorant of our needs Microsoft has delivered quality 
products for cheap and in many cases for FREE! This long-term 
commitment demonstrates to me that Microsoft cares for students and 
educators. The fact that the vast majority of our students *prefer* 
Microsoft products to other products and operating systems 
demonstrates this. I urge you to allow the settlement and resolution 
of the Microsoft case. Please allow what I consider to be one of our 
countrys' National Treasures the freedom to continue supporting and 
inspiring the work of Education.
    Thank you and best wishes.
    --;Robert Evans



MTC-00028101

From: NATHAN S MORRIS
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    --;--;major penalties,no breakup--;--;NATHAN



MTC-00028102

From: 
ben--;[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft is the engine of our economy train. Leave them along 
and let them pull all of us forward.



MTC-00028103

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I donot feel that Microsoft should be allowed to proceed with 
its products uninhibited by government or less successful 
competitors



MTC-00028104

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I THINK THAT THEIR SHOULD BE NO MORE LITIGATION IN THE MICROSOFT 
CASE. THE STATES SHOULD APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT.



MTC-00028105

From: 
[email protected]@inetg
w
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I endorse the settlement between Microsoft and US Government. I 
am hoping for a Final Judgment.



MTC-00028106

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please consider ending the legal activity against Microsoft. 
Microsoft has offered a very large settlement which should be 
approved in the interest of allowing technology to advance. 
Microsoft was never a monopoly (as is my garbage service & city 
sewer/garbage service). It is unfortunate that the Clinton 
Administration Justice Department originally started this 
unsupportable suit. Thank you for listening.



MTC-00028107

From: 
[email protected]@i
netgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This settlement is very fair. the only people that seem to be 
complaining are microsofts' competitors and people that think 
operating systems should be free and not be considered intellectual 
property. This company is one of the great success stories of the 
20th century. don't punish them further for this success. nobody 
that I know complains about microsoft. they like their products and 
find them easy to use. stop wasting all this money on this court 
case. it's ridiculous.



MTC-00028108

From: 
holly--;[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    While I disagreed with the government s antitrust case in the 
first place I am pleased with the settlement insofar as it brings 
the case to a close.



MTC-00028109

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This entire Microsoft case has done more harm than good. Not 
only has it wasted time and money but it has also been run at the 
expense of pursuing various attacks by the Al-Qaeda organization.



MTC-00028110

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Windows XP came installed when I purchased my new computer. I'm 
very disappointed with this highly praised Operating system. I can't 
run my printer as I did with Windows 95 and it can't be fixed.

[[Page 28193]]

    Microsoft should be made to remedy my situation.



MTC-00028111

From: will
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:33pm
Subject: in regards to the microsoft anti-trust case
    I used to be a consultant on Microsoft products right up until 
about 4 years ago when I switched from consulting on systems 
integration and started doing development work on a variety of other 
platforms. I've known a lot of the folks at Microsoft over the years 
and been a part of various Microsoft initiatives. As the years have 
passed, I've become increasingly concerned with the level of quality 
of Microsoft products and the direct effects they have on our world. 
Not just consumers, or businesses, or governments, or the Internet, 
but --;everything--;. The reason they have this affect on 
--;everything--; is because they outsell other operating 
system providers in a variety of business spaces. This ability they 
have comes less from radical product superiority, but mostly from 
their absolutely amazing business and marketing skills. I think 
these business and marketing moves that Microsoft has made have 
become increasingly Machiovellian--;the ends absolutely 
justifies the means in the Microsoft juggernaut's mind (sorry for 
the personification here). Reading through the findings and my 
experiences in the Microsoft world and my friends'' lives, I 
believed as the courts did that Microsoft is guilty of abusing their 
monopoly.
    Reading through the settlement recommendation, I'm appalled. I 
think it does nothing to curb Microsoft's business and marketing 
juggernaut which clearly lacks moral sense. I think it actually 
furthers Microsoft's monopoly in the future without instilling any 
moral and ethical guidelines.
    I am absolutely against this settlement and I think it's 
ridiculous that it's even being considered by anyone. It's not an 
issues of good vs. evil, it's an issue of fixing the future so that 
consumers aren't continually hurt by the continual immoral practices 
of a behemoth company.
    Thank you for your time,
    /will
    whatever it is, you can find it at http://www.bluesock.org/
willg/ except Will--;you can only see him in real life.



MTC-00028112

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly support the settlement reached between Microsoft and 
the Federal Government. The few state attorneys general who have not 
signed on appear to be more interested in the political benefits of 
opposing big business than in the public welfare. Government must 
not penalize businesses merely because they are successful or large. 
Innovation should not be discouraged by reducing competitiveness. 
Competition is essential to developing the technology that our 
country s economy depends on.
    The settlement protects the public while ensuring competition 
and innovation. The key features include an onsite committee to 
ensure Microsoft s compliance the ability for consumers to delete 
Microsoft programs from their operating systems the ability for 
computer manufacturers to add programs to PC s with Windows and 
forcing Microsoft to disclose the technical information necessary to 
competitors so their software will run smoothly on Windows.
    Sincerely
    Eric W. Spak



MTC-00028113

From: 
[email protected]@inetg
w
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think this is a fair and just settlement. Don t think any 
changes should be made



MTC-00028114

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the settlement as it stands now between the government 
and Microsoft is fair and just. I believe the government has been 
exemplary in it s conduct during the Microsoft case. The nine 
remaining states should end their suits in this case and join the 
Federal government in ending this long running case.
    They are only wasting the tax payers money. For AOL to bring it 
s suit against Microsoft on behalf of Netscape is pure folly on AOL 
s part. The case has pretty much been decided on. They are only try 
to delay it. For what purpose? Who knows. In my personal opinion I 
don t believe Microsoft ever did anything wrong. But since it has 
already been ruled against that s OK. We should move on from there.
    End this case now before it does more harm than good.
    Thank you for listening.



MTC-00028115

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This case has gone on long enough and needs to be settled to get 
the economy going. Nine states settled and the nine states holding 
out should settle also. Netscape is a sore loser because people like 
Internet Explorer better. That's competition on which this country 
thrives. I have both in my computer but like Internet Explorer 
better. AOL also has no business bringing a new suit against 
Microsoft. It should be thrown out. I don't like AOL either. If 
anyone tries to monopolize the internet it s AOL.



MTC-00028116

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Have you people ever read The Law by Frederic Bastiat? It is not 
the legitimate role of government to manipulate the free market.



MTC-00028117

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Quick and fast settlement is beneficial to the economy as a 
whole. The current settlement has already posed good restriction on 
Microsoft on anti-trust related issues.



MTC-00028118

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The governments' actions are threatening the safety liberty and 
prosperity of the United States and its citizens.



MTC-00028119

From: 
[email protected]@i
netgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Accept the Settlement The proposed settlement already helps the 
rivals of Microsoft by placing significant restrictions on 
Microsoft. Hopefully no more time or money will be spent on 
unnecessary objections by a few state governments that are holding 
out.



MTC-00028120

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In today's highly competitive environment most of Microsoft's 
practices should not be judged within a legal framework but rather 
should be seen as aggressive marketing practices. Such extreme cases 
confuse people and rather than spending time effort and resources to 
find ways to become more competitive the rely upon a legal system to 
get them out of the hook. In my opinion the end result of such 
extreme legal actions is that the consumer does not enjoy the best 
possible products at the best possible price that come out of 
competition in so many other markets.



MTC-00028121

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft where would we be with out you? You are the brain 
behind todays technologies and we are for you



MTC-00028122

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wish that I had the time to write a response that would 
reflect my complete disgust on the attack of Microsoft by our 
government's abusive use of power and influence. Simply I want this 
government's action against Microsoft only for the benefit of 
Microsoft's unsuccessful competitors to come to an end.
    We need to get on with the economy and tremendous prosperity 
that we enjoyed

[[Page 28194]]

before this government's overzealous bureaucrats and these cry baby 
spoiled brats from Sun Microystems Oracle and Netscape helped take 
this country into recession. Accept the settlement and get on with 
life!!! How stupid! Take the most productive and successful company 
in the world and try to destroy it! What a bunch of idiots!! I said 
this as nice as I could with this much anger!!! You should hear the 
way I really feel about it!!



MTC-00028123

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    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. I do not 
feel I have been harmed. 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



MTC-00028124

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I fully support the current settlement and believe that further 
litigations against Microsoft should be stopped. It is obvious that 
Microsoft's competitors Oracle and Sun System are doing everything 
they can to ruin the company. Our government should not be 
influenced by this. Enough already. A fair settlement was achieved. 
Federal government should discourage the remaining states from 
further litigation. Microsoft one of the most successful American 
companies should be allowed to continue its efforts in innovation. 
Our fragile economy needs this and consumers are benefiting from 
innovation.



MTC-00028125

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time for the government to get out of the free enterprise 
systems way! Microsoft has made life easier for everyone. I could 
have any program that I chose. Noone has forced me to use Microsoft 
Products. I use them because they work and are economical. What's 
wrong with that? Since when did making money become against the law? 
They give more to charity than the U.S. Government.
    Give me a break and do something worth while. We have become a 
nation of wannabes rather than a nation of doers. The justice system 
needs to mind its own business and it has plenty to mind! What if 
Microsoft said enough. You can have it and we quit and take our ball 
to the house. Would software still be as economical and work? I 
think not!



MTC-00028126

From: 
[email protected]@in
etgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please move forth on the Microsoft settlement. This case has 
slowed down the evolution of technology.



MTC-00028127

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In my opinion the suit against Microsoft should never have been 
filed by the DOJ to begin with. It is time to stop it and the 
settlement should be approved and the Court should force all states 
and persons to abide by it. Let's stop allowing the incapable ones 
to enter a field about which they are not sufficiently informed and 
capable by screaming false accusations. End user consumers have been 
greatly harmed by the suit already and in fact will continue to be 
harmed by the suit and the limitations and regulations imposed by 
the settlement. However better that we at least stop further blood-
letting and force the competitors to find their place in the market 
on the merit of their products and not on the basis of politics.



MTC-00028128

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Keep the government out of Microsoft's business! This is as 
stupid as saying Henry Ford had an unfair advantage in selling cars. 
Microsoft built the better mouse trap and is being punished for it 
THIS IS UNAMERICAN



MTC-00028129

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Bogus charge the company has done more for the consumer then 
could be expected of any company



MTC-00028130

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not understand the whole problem or lack of. I have had 
three different computers in the past five years and Netscape and 
Compuserve were all loaded in them I presently use both Netscape and 
Microsoft Explorer. LEAVE MICROSOFT ALONE if it was not for them we 
would not have the ease of use that we enjoy today.



MTC-00028131

From: 
tom--;[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Further action against Microsoft is unwarranted and will stifle 
the development of technology that is critical to America 
maintaining its leadership role in computer applications.



MTC-00028132

From: Jim AA Wright
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think it is time to settle this Microsoft thing and quit 
wasting Government money on it. I don't think anyone knows how many 
businesses have been started to carry on and supplement Microsoft. I 
think it is time they were allowed to continue without the threat of 
a law suit hanging over them. They have caused no real harm to 
anyone, but there are those that would like to line there pockets at 
Microsofts expense.
    Jim A Wright
    [email protected]



MTC-00028133

From: 
[email protected]@
inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe it is in the best interest of America to accept the 
settlement and move on. The settlement despite it's prejudice toward 
Microsoft will help our economy. I don't think the competitors have 
suffered from Microsoft exclusion.I think they don't have the 
expertise to compete. If there was a system that was as user 
friendly as windows it would have been just as successful. At any 
rate Microsoft is willing to share their technology with competitors 
so accept it and move forward.
    Sincerely
    Gwen Fisk
    Owner of Full House Exterminators



MTC-00028134

From: 
[email protected]@inet
gw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe this settlement is fair to everyone and allows for 
continued technology growth.



MTC-00028135

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    let consumers determine the demand and thus the supply for 
products. the govt should have a hands off policy in the free market 
place.



MTC-00028136

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:31pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    TO WHOM IT CONCERNS,
    IT SEEMS TO ME THERE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THINGS TO BE DONE IN 
THIS COUNTRY, BESIDES RIDE MICROSOFT WITH EVERY WHIM OF THE PEOPLE 
WHO WANT TO SUE. I THINK THERE SHOULD BE A SETTLEMENT AND GET ON 
WITH WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE IN THIS COUNTRY. THERE ARE PLENTY OF 
CROOKS OUT THERE TO GET IF THAT IS

[[Page 28195]]

WHAT YOU WANT.I THINK YOU ARE BARKING UP THE WRONG TREE. GO FIND THE 
REAL CROOKS
    SINCERELY
    HOPE GUZZO



MTC-00028137

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please allow the ruling on Microsoft to stand. We need strong 
companies to flourish in our economy without undue government 
interference. Free enterprise is one of the basic principles of 
liberty and we need the jobs and technology companies like Microsoft 
provide.



MTC-00028138

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This is a terrible miscarriage of justice. Microsoft should not 
be held to this ridicule. They are the creature of this soft ware 
and should be governed by the consumers and not by the government. 
Microsoft and their operating system are vary big and yes their is a 
reason for that. It's because they made a produce that was needed. 
They were is the right place at the right time and created a demand 
for their produce because people wanted it and it was a good 
product. Now that they are successful they are being penalized for 
it. Of course others are going to complain about it that's because 
others are trying to get a piece of the action and get it any way 
they can. The actions brought against Microsoft is also an action 
against the free enterprise of the United States of America.



MTC-00028139

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think Microsoft is doing a fine job and should be exonerated. 
The competitors are envious and want the government to control the 
competition in their favor. They can't win people complain if they 
give their software away or price it too high. If there wasn't a 
market for it nobody would buy it. The only ones who seem to have a 
problem with them is their competitors. Leave them alone and let 
them keep innovating.



MTC-00028140

From: 
[email protected]@inetg
w
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The currently negotiated settlement is sufficient. Any further 
action should be suspended.



MTC-00028141

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please! Please! Get OFF Microsoft's Back! Stop Your SILLY 
castigation this productive Company!



MTC-00028142

From: Michele Stouffer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not believe the settlement offered by the Bush 
administration and other states is in the public interest. I believe 
more needs to be done to curb Microsoft's monopoly and invigorate 
competition and real innovation in the operating system and office 
product software markets.
    I am a technical training course developer in Silicon Valley, 
and use Microsoft's products not because I believe that they are 
superior, but because there is no real choice. They have become an 
inferior defacto standard. One would think that with all Microsoft's 
resources and the number of years their products have been around, 
that the products would be robust and elegant. But the fact is, a 
week doesn't go by that either Word or PowerPoint or even the 
Windows operating system either freezes up or totally crashes. Over 
ten years of using their products has added up to countless hours of 
lost productivity.
    I believe that consumers would greatly benefit if Microsoft were 
forced to spend some of their resources on improving their products 
(by having to compete) instead of protecting their monopoly.
    Michele Stouffer



MTC-00028143

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Antitrust Bureaucrats: First I regard DOJs intrusion into 
Microsoft's business to be an American Travesty. Now that DOJ has 
sucked millions of dollars out of the Microsoft pot who will be 
next? Can't you folks at DOJ understand that you have NOT done 
consumers a favor in that they [consumers] will ultimately pay for 
your meddling due to increased costs to produce the Microsoft 
products? Why can't you government (of by and for the people... yeah 
right) types understand that simple concept?
    Furthermore I DO like many products produced by Microsoft. 
However if I want a choice of operating systems there are others out 
there and I DO use them. There are other browser products out there 
such as Opera which I am using right now.... It is better than the 
Microsoft browser so I use it. You folks at DOJ DID NOT DO ME ANY 
FAVORS by getting into Microsoft's business and sucking out millions 
of dollars THE COST OF WHICH MUST ULTIMATELY BE BORNE BY ME THE 
CONSUMER. You see... not everyone in America is dumb to what is 
going on here....
    Sincerely
    Jeff Bayer
    BayerMedia



MTC-00028144

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I request that the settlement that was agreed upon be allowed to 
be implemented so we can get on with technology advancement.



MTC-00028145

From: Lee Liaw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Thank you for letting us ordinary citizens comment on this 
lawsuit. I am confused by many of the charges that have been made in 
this lawsuit. However, the one issue that seems to get a lot of 
attention, and affects the people, is the charge that Microsoft has 
hurt the end-user. As an ordinary citizen, I can categorically state 
that I have not been hurt one bit by Microsoft. My family uses their 
software products, along with a bunch of other companies'' 
software products, and I have not experienced any problems. In fact, 
I feel that the other companies are benefiting because I am buying 
their products. That is what is confusing. I don't see the ordinary 
citizen being hurt. In fact, I see them as benefiting from all this 
technology.
    When I read the allegations, I am deeply bothered at the charges 
and statements made by the attorney generals of the 18 States. Then 
I read what Microsoft's competitor have to say, and that makes me 
outraged, because it clearly shows that these companies are bribing 
the States to do their dirty work. The way I interpret it, is that 
they are not very astute business people, and they need some help, 
so they pay-off their Congressmen to do their dirty work for them. 
This is what really outrages me.
    Furthermore, I read the remaining 9 States are extending this 
lawsuit. In my opinion it sounds like greed! The companies that are 
in those 9 States are again bribing their attorney generals. My 
analysis, as an ordinary citizen, is that these companies are not 
very astute business people. If they can't make a good product that 
people will buy, then they don't deserve to be in business. If they 
are not astute business people, I don't want them representing my 
country when the go overseas and sell to foreign countries. I don't 
feel like a proud American when I read that these companies are 
bribing their Congressmen to do their dirty work. It reminds of the 
government corruption that I read about in other countries. I 
certainly hope that our government does not stoop that low that we 
allow our businessmen to corrupt us through bribery and collusion.
    I may only be a common ordinary citizen with not much influence 
as these large businesses, but I wish to exercise my Constitutional 
right to freedom of expression and certainly hope that you will 
consider my comments.
    Thank you.
    Lee Liaw



MTC-00028147

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please bring the lengthy anti-trust case to an end. It would be 
in the best interest of the technology industry consumers and the 
economy. There was a settlement on Nov.3 2001 with the federal 
government an a

[[Page 28196]]

number of state attorney generals please endorse this settlement.
    Thank-you.
    Sincerely
    Pam & Phil Mehling



MTC-00028148

From: 
[email protected]@in
etgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Do leave Microsoft alone they are the leaders in technology in 
the world. Without Microsofts ideas we would loose our edge.



MTC-00028150

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the entire trial has been a mistake for America and 
the economy. I use windows-based computers my mother and sister use 
apples and my son uses Linux. MS is being punished for providing 
consumers with an easy to use and affordable operating system. 
Having said that I believe the settlement reached actually goes 
beyond the finding of the Court of Appeals. So I will be able to 
support them exactly as written.



MTC-00028151

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    PLEASE END THE ANTI-TRUST CASE AGAINST MICROSOFT.
    THANK-YOU
    H&K MEHLING



MTC-00028152

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft operating systems starting from Windows 98 to the 
current XP have filters & command lines written within that 
causes non Microsoft software programs to stall or crash. The error 
message in the Close Program box is usually Not Responding. No 
matter how much Ram is being used or what the processor speed is 
this message appears. My company builds computer systems installs 
hardware & software and troubleshoots many PC problems. It has 
been my experience that the bulk of my troubleshooting calls have 
been non Microsoft software problems. Usually on the new systems 
that someone has purchased will have Windows 98 NT ME 2000 & XP 
as the operating system. Common problems are the driver files 
located in these operating systems. To fix the problem a mass 
majority of the time I have to uninstall either the hardware or 
software and then reinstall it with the disk provided by the 
manufacturer. Ninety-nine percent of the time the first 
uninstallation/reinstallation works.
    There have been times when I had to do this two or three times 
and keep rebooting the computer to get it to accept the files from 
the manufacturer instead of the files provided by the Windows 
operating system. I currently have Windows 98-Second Edition on my 
home PC and find that system actually helps troubleshoot problems 
with other Microsoft OSs. Windows 3.1 and 95 didn't carry the same 
command lines as the newer OSs thus they had less failures. No 
company should be allowed to dominate a market such as Microsoft. 
This is America and it should be an equal opportunity for all 
computer manufacturers. After all computers in this country run a 
mass majority of business both in the work place and now more so in 
the private homes of Americans. This should give all companies the 
opportunity to develop hardware & software that is compatible. 
For that reason alone companies like Gateway Compaq Packard-Bell 
& Apple/MacIntosh aren't very successful in the computer



MTC-00028153

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think this case should end immediately. All citizens have 
benefitted from Microsoft products. Bill Gates is brilliant and 
surrounds himself with brilliant people and has done nothing wrong. 
We only wish we were as smart. To force Microsoft to house a Tech 
Committee to enforce his compliance with the settlement and then 
demand he fund it is insane. In America we are suppose to be able to 
succeed without government punishment for doing well. The government 
should never have been involved in the first place. CEOs of 
competitors have thrown money in the right place to bring about this 
suit in the first place. That is obvious to everyone. To even 
entertain a forced breakup of Microsoft just simply isn't the 
American way. Someone somewhere forgot that theory. Maybe the 
competitors should do better work instead of trying to bring down 
those that are smarter than them. This is just the opinion of a 
simple public high school teacher who only wishes to have been so 
brilliant. Leave Microsoft alone.



MTC-00028154

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wish the government and states would just drop this nonsense 
and quit trying to hurt the free enterprise system and economy also 
control the freedom of companies to succeed and make better products 
in very competitive market. If they think for a minuet that the 
whole government finding was fair and just I think NOT! AOL and 
other companies point the accusing finger at Microsoft for being a 
monopoly its just a ploy to take a successful company down so they 
can eat up the whole market. Microsoft has never overcharged the 
consumer for innovative products. This kind of legal dog and pony 
show put on by the states and federal government wasting the tax 
payers money has got to stop.



MTC-00028155

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I AGREE WITH THE SETTLEMENT



MTC-00028156

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a long-time Microsoft user I find the company's settlement 
offer to be eminently fair and straightforward. Not only does it 
provide much-needed support to Microsoft users the world over it 
answers and pretty much solves the complaints that Microsoft 
competitors have been talking about since the beginning of this 
whole controversy. For the good of all it's time to move forward. 
Please accept this settlement offer.



MTC-00028157

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have been a fan of Microsoft and Bill Gates through all of 
this mess. We as Americans should be grateful for companies and men 
like Mr. Gates. If Microsoft hadn't developed the technology some 
other company in another nation would have. All these companies 
crying and complaining about Microsoft where were they in the early 
days? Thats right let someone else do the research and development 
and then cry like a baby that you got screwed. In my opinion 
Microsoft didn't do anything that someone else could have done if 
they had been willing to take the Bull By The Horns spend some money 
and take a risk. I have no ill feelings for Microsoft whatsoever and 
feel THEY if anyone has been treated unfairly and unjust.



MTC-00028158

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Every section of this settlement which addresses practices which 
Microsoft has traditionally used to eliminate the possibility of 
competition seems to be dependent on definitions of terms such as 
Non-Microsoft Middleware Product and Windows Operating System 
Product which are still vague enough to be disputable when Microsoft 
next feels threatened. Enforcement is by a Technical Committee whose 
paychecks come from Microsoft who are employed in Microsoft arranged 
offices with Microsoft provided resources on Microsoft's corporate 
campus in Redmond Washington.
    Even if these controls turn out to be sufficient to stop 
Microsoft's enforcement of it's desktop monopoly we'll be back in 
this discussion 5 years from now when they expire. This settlement 
insures that no other company can use the anti-competitive tactics 
that Microsoft has taught the industry the hard way against 
Microsoft themselves. To me this seems unfair as these other 
companies have already been affected by Microsofts past abuses even 
though most of these other companies have not proven as 
untrustworthy in this regard as Microsoft. This settlement does not 
actually have any effect whatsoever on Microsoft's existing 
monopoly. In my opinion this settlement is an insult to the DOJ and 
to computer users in general that we could so easily be fooled

[[Page 28197]]

again. Microsoft will continue to buy all competition which can be 
bought and to find creative ways to kill all competition that they 
can't buy. Thank you for listening. :-)



MTC-00028159

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:23pm
Subject: Microsoft'settlement
    I believe this settlement is not fair. Because I believe this 
suit should never have been brought in the first place. I have seen 
firsthand the problems deregulation brought in the telephone 
industry and I believe it is wrong and rather unAmerican to penalize 
companys for doing well such as microsoft is being penalized.
    The message this sends to the citizens is that if you form a 
company and do very well the government will step in and force you 
to give up some of your assets and redistribute your wealth among 
some of the less wealthy companys. This is the tenents of Carl Marx. 
We all know what that is called. This has no place in a democracy. 
This message says Only do moderately well with your company if you 
make too much money we will step in and redistribute your wealth to 
others that are less wealthy. Our country needs to take another look 
at our undemocratic monopoly laws.



MTC-00028160

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:23pm
Subject: Microsoft'settlement
    Is there a limit to the potential of capitalism? Is there a cap 
on the American success story? If Microsoft makes a product that is 
only compatible with other Microsoft products then so be it. Anyone 
that wishes to compete against Microsoft' should be able to do so 
without restriction. That is what free enterprise is all about. As 
long as the products that Microsoft creates is not a health hazard 
etc. they should be able to do as they please. If the public gets 
fed up they have the option to choose another brand. Don't get me 
wrong I don't like the idea of a giant corporation taking advantage 
of their position in the market to wield their unlimited capital and 
public appeal to take advantage of the consumer. However lets not 
put an end to freedom of enterprise and let's not put a cap on the 
potential of success in America.



MTC-00028161

From: T.J. Mather
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:09pm
Subject: Microsoft' settlement
    I am opposed to the proposed Microsoft'settlement. I agree with 
the problems identified in Dan Kegel's analysis on the Web at http:/
/www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html
    Sincerely,
    Thomas J Mather
    155 West 15th Street, Apt #4C
    New York, NY 10011



MTC-00028162

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:23pm
Subject: Microsoft' settlement
    The parties opposed to the settlement are beyond children having 
temper tantrums they are morally obscene. The settlement is more 
than generous and cessation of the conflict will benefit America at 
large individual citizens our economy and the well-being of people 
all around the globe. If I were an enemy of the United States I 
would be cheering the efforts of the opposition as there can be no 
greater harm done to our nation than to indulge in continuous 
unremitting illogical energy draining costly distractions from the 
productive and creative efforts of paradigm-shifting companies like 
Microsoft. The motives of those opposing the settlement are 
transparent they are clearly nothing more than cheap gold diggers.



MTC-00028163

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:23pm
Subject: Microsoft' settlement
    I agree with this settlement only to the extent that it ends a 
long and expensive litigation process. The entire suite was 
economically and Constitutionally unsound but it has now grown to 
the point that government money would be better spent on other 
perhaps less intrusive projects. The fact that the government is 
seeking to exert such obscene control over the high-tech industry is 
frightening but the prospect of millions of taxpayer dollars being 
used to subsidize a longer trial is even more frightening.



MTC-00028164

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:23pm
Subject: Microsoft' settlement
    gentlemen: it is my belief that an equitable solution in the 
microsoft law suit has been reached and should be allowed to stand 
as is. further it does not appear in anyone's best interest to 
squander court time and resources on expensive lawyers.
    sincerely
    c.l.bass



MTC-00028165

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:23pm
Subject: Microsoft' settlement
    I'm not an expert in the technology field. I've followed the 
news reports involving Microsoft. I think that this is a case of 
envy. Microsoft was built by hardwork and genius. Competitors have 
built off of the work of Microsoft. I think the settlement is unfair 
to Microsoft. They are being penalized for being innovators. I only 
wish I had their talent genius & understanding of computers 
& technology.



MTC-00028166

From: 
[email protected]@
inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:23pm
Subject: Microsoft' settlement
    We are a global economy. We should allow Microsoft a leader in 
the worlds communication field and a strong American company to 
continue to operate without government interference. Let the cry 
babies that couldn't compete take their lumps and address their own 
business failures. Microsofts success will only enhance third world 
countries not only by their business endeavors but also in the area 
of its philanthropy.



MTC-00028167

From: 
[email protected]@inetg
w
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:23pm
Subject: Microsoft' settlement
    Although Microsoft Microsoft' stockholders and the American 
consumer are losers including the public school system. With 
attorneys politicians and special interest groups reaping personal 
gain at the expense of the consumer Let the settlement stand before 
the rest of the world assumes tech leader ship.



MTC-00028168

From: manuelwc@manuel-
associates.net@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:23pm
Subject: Microsoft' settlement
    I strongly endorse the settlement. It is balanced in its 
approach and it achieves as much fairness as is possible given the 
complexity of the issues and variety of interests demanding to be 
served.



MTC-00028169

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:23pm
Subject: Microsoft' settlement
    As a user of Microsoft products over the years I am very 
disappointed in DOJs actions against Microsoft and the $35 Million 
it spent to cripple the IT industry. Although I do not agree with 
some provisions of the settlement I find the fact of the settlement 
and resulting closure to be better for the economy than further 
harassment of MS and it's chilling effect on entrepreneurial spirit. 
Let's get on with the task of building a better world through 
information technology. DOJ owes Microsoft an apology that will 
never be issued but let's not drag them any further from doing what 
they do best....creating the best software/systems in the world.



MTC-00028170

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:23pm
Subject: Microsoft' settlement
    the government needs to stay out of it all together. if 
microsoft wants to give the consumer something free this is their 
right.



MTC-00028171

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:23pm
Subject: Microsoft' settlement
    I have reviewed the JD/Microsoft' settlement and I am happy to 
see that both sides in this action have finally come to a 
satisfactory agreement. The forces of open competition are essential 
to build new technology. Also as technology advances the integration 
issues have to bring us all to a systems solution that is open 
standards based and therefore competitive in cost. Challenges

[[Page 28198]]

to this agreement by competitors are obviously being done for one 
reason and that is to erode the Microsoft market position. These 
have to be evaluated for what they are and nothing more!



MTC-00028172

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Henry Ford changed the world as far as automobiles are 
concerned. Bill Gates changed the world as far as computers are 
concerned. I think he should receive a Hero medal.



MTC-00028173

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It would be beneficial to allow the settlement that forty one 
states agreed to accept be finalized so that the future of Microsoft 
isn t clouded by litigation for years to come both here and abroad.



MTC-00028174

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the settlement agreed to by Microsoft and the 
Justice Dept. is quite fair and equitable to all parties involved. I 
do not believe there is anything to be ained by further litigation 
in fact it will do great harm to the American public.



MTC-00028175

From: 
[email protected]@inet
gw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Anti Trust case over Microsoft should have never even 
started. It is apparent the only reason why it started was because 
NetScape and AOL paid off people to bring the case because they knew 
they couldn t bet Microsoft in the marketplace. Who would really 
want to have to pay for an Internet Browser when they get one for 
free? This new case AOL has brought is because they are fuming that 
MSN is getting bigger and bigger pieces of the market. It is called 
capitalism live with it and stop trying to bring your rival down 
with cheap tricks or file for chapter 11 and close down. In 
capitalism whoever is selling the better product for a cheaper price 
wins and AOL and Netscape needs to realize that and stop complaining 
to the government. What President Bush is doing by trying to keep 
out of the private business sector is a smart descision. Business 
don t need more government control and this how recession we are 
going through shows what happens when the government does try to 
control.



MTC-00028176

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The government should have never entered in the suit. Microsoft 
is a great company. It employs many people and it provides great 
products. No one is tied to the company with a cord. If someone 
doesn t want to buy the product he/she doesn t have to buy it. The 
government should stay out of these things and not punish success. 
If the government officials are jealous of Bill Gates success they 
should learn to live with it! There is no crime and was no crime!



MTC-00028177

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As an end-user comsumer I feel that this Final Judgement is as 
good as likely to be. I recommend acceptance of this judgement.



MTC-00028178

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am very much in favor of Microsoft. This is a country of free 
enterprise. No more tax money on this case.



MTC-00028179

From: 
[email protected]@inet
gw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Although I do not always agree with the way Microsoft does 
business I also have to admit that they have done more than Sun 
Netscape AOL and others to advance the wide spread use of PCs. As 
far as using software from a company other than Microsoft I find it 
very easy to install the software. I have little or no problems with 
the installation or use of non-Microsoft software. I know that 
Netscape AOL and Sun seem to think that Microsoft has harmed their 
businesses but I have used Netscape in the past and let me say that 
Netscape hurt themselves. As far as Sun AOL Apple and others are 
concerned if they were so concerned about the general population I 
did not sense it in their products or their business practices.
    In closing I will restate that I do not always agree with 
Microsoft but if not for them and the IBM compatable PC I would not 
be using a PC today. Before we go to far down the road of penalties 
against Microsoft we need to explore the true intent of the other 
companies. If their products and services are good then people will 
buy them if not--;why force their products and services on us.



MTC-00028180

From: lu-
[email protected]@inetg
w
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This law suit was none other than to intimidate a company that 
was making too much money and certain persons being envious. Also 
because they didn t give large political contributions had to be 
punished. Rediculous to have even instituted the law suit against 
Microsoft. People were and are able to purchase other products. 
Microsoft makes things easier. I am strickly against the suit. 
Clinton should be the one on trial these days not Microsoft.



MTC-00028181

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    gentlepersons
    After careful and through review of the settlement details I 
wish to express my agreement that it represents a fair and equtible 
resolution of most of the issues involved. The intense global 
technological competition is enough for our U.S. companies to have 
to deal without further selfinflicting judicial wounds that can only 
hamper our countries continued leadership in these areas.
    yours truly
    Mr. J. Podesta



MTC-00028183

From: 
[email protected]@
inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    If our Government spent as much $ and time going after Osama Bin 
Laden rather then Bill Gates we would not be mourning our loved 
ones.



MTC-00028184

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am appalled that AOL is trying to sue Microsoft after the 
settlement that has been reached which was too tough on Microsoft in 
my opinion. Where would the millions on AOL customers have come from 
without Microsoft??? We all owe a debt of gratitude to them rather 
than envy at a job well done that benefits us all AOL in particular! 
Please stop this injustice at once.



MTC-00028185

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We've already wasted hundreds of millions of dollars of 
taxpayers money -the courts have ruled & the settlement was 
accepted by the justice department. Let s get on with the more 
important things in our life like the national and homeland 
security.



MTC-00028186

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    the cost of this case is too high. it has stopped technology 
advance and should be settled now



MTC-00028187

From:[email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Settle this suit. Government should not have filed in the first 
place. Free markets are the best regulators and protectors of 
consumers!

[[Page 28199]]



MTC-00028188

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    settlement is better than nothing I believe you should settle 
this as quick as possible ... I am not in favor of the Microsoft 
suit nor the expenditures of time money and talent...look at the 
experience with GM IBM etc. Microsoft will have a tough world in 
this changing environment and you folks are expressing its early 
demise raising our cost(s) and realy not benefiting anyone! Fine the 
hell out of them for their sophmoric tactics and get on with 
business.



MTC-00028189

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please don't allow onerous regulation and endless lawsuits to 
gum up private enterprise and customer choice. Thank you.



MTC-00028190

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that we need to fullfill the settlement agreement and 
move on.



MTC-00028191

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that the microsoft settlement reached on November 3 2001 
is fair and reasonable and no further legal action needs be taken.



MTC-00028192

From: 
[email protected]@i
netgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The argument is clear. Was the consumer hurt by Microsoft 
bundling the browser with the operating system? The answer is no. 
The Netscape argument is it could not compete because the consumer 
did not have a choice. Netscapes claim is Microsoft circumvented the 
consumers decision to choose. Software is ubiquitous in that anyone 
can design develop and sell it. Microsoft did not prevent Netscape 
from designing developing and selling its browser. Netscape gave up 
trying to make a better browser and at that point the consumer did 
choose they choose to use Microsofts browser. The fact is Netscapes 
success depended on Microsoft selling more copies of Windows and 
therefore Netscape could have sold more copies of its browser.



MTC-00028193

From: 
[email protected]@inetg
w
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Don't let Microsoft's competitors use the court system to 
manipulate the marketplace by pressuring the court to continue this 
case. The settlement proposed to date is fare and just.



MTC-00028194

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think we should leave Microsoft Corporation alone. Hooray to 
Bill Gates he is a very successful man.
    My opinion is the government should leave that company 
alone...and let them get on with their business.



MTC-00028195

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I support Microsoft in settling the law suit.



MTC-00028196

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear MS. Hesse: Please end the government s unjustified attack 
on Microsoft. This embarrassment is a hold over from the previous 
administration s abuse of the US Justice Dept. and the US justice 
system. I believe that it is in the best interest of the country to 
drop the case all together but in light of the unlikeliness of that 
to occur the current settlement should be allowed to stand.
    Sincerely
    Steve Hunt



MTC-00028197

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough is enough! Let s get off this subject and go on to More 
important things!! To persue this subject further would be a waste 
of tax payers money. Too much has already been spent! Let the 
settlement stand and let the free market system handle the future! I 
and millions of other Americans have had enough of this matter!



MTC-00028198

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I concur with the action taken by the Federal Government. I do 
not like sole source suppliers of any product. It appears to me the 
Microsoft was well on its way to that end. If I could get other 
software to work on my computer I would do so. Lee



MTC-00028199

From: deane-
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Again I say I remember when Windows first came out I have a copy 
of that program. I am thankful for Microsoft other wise we would 
still be using DOS. Microsoft owns Windows and should not have to 
give away their codes to help other sofeware companys. They invented 
it and should have all the rights to it. Just like Henry Ford and 
Alexander G. Bell look at AT&T now since they were told to give 
away the store. We all are worse off than we were years ago. Let 
Microsoft do its thing and make it better without interference. I 
back Microsoft all the way leave them alone they have a vision of 
the future in using computers and let them proceed. Maybe the stock 
market will go up again it went down when they got sued remember.
    Thank you
    D. Atwood



MTC-00028200

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Implement the agreed upon settlement without any further delays.



MTC-00028201

From: 
[email protected]@i
netgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have been a computer user since the days when every computer 
had its own operating system. Chaos ruled the field. Microsoft by 
being in a fortunate position and taking advatage of that position 
by making a superior product became the standard for personal 
computers throughout the world. To punish them for being the best in 
what they do would itself be a crime. Breaking them up would bring 
chaos out of order at a time when the country s economy needs order. 
To punish Microfsoft with more than a warning and some survaliance 
paid for by Microsoft would not be justified. The fact that AOL owns 
Netscape but uses Microsoft Internet Explorer as its Internet 
Browser says volumes about the quality of Microsofts products. And 
it isn t American to punish the succesful nor is it in the interest 
of the United States to overpunish Microsoft. Sure they did some 
wrong but they have done far more good.
    Thank You
    Michael F. Sypek



MTC-00028202

From: 
[email protected]@in
etgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am against the proposed settlement. Microsoft should never 
have been sued the Clinton Justice Dept. failed miserably and the 
economic downturn began when Microsoft came under attack and has not 
recovered since.



MTC-00028203

From: 
[email protected]@inetg
w
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly support this settlement and an end to any further 
litigation against Microsoft Corporation as it pertains to the 
current charges. I have always felt that the charges were baseless 
and that Microsoft did not take advantage of the market any more 
than any other legal business would have been entitled to. I feel 
they are being punished considerably for actions that would not have 
affected the market or consumers. Please

[[Page 28200]]

finalize this settlement and stop bleeding taxpayers and 
shareholders.



MTC-00028204

From: 
[email protected]@i
netgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I SUPPORT THE SETTLEMENT REACHED BY THE GOVERNMENT AND 
MICROSOFT. I DID NOT SUPPORT THE LITIGATION. LET S LET MICROSOFT GET 
BACK TO DOING WHAT IT DOES BEST PROVIDING US WITH THE WORLDS BEST 
COMPUTER PROGRAMS. STOP HARASSING THIS GREAT COMPANY.
    SINCERELY
    ALLEN M. METZGER



MTC-00028205

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
Vanessa Castagliola
154 Aspinwall Street
Staten Island, NY 10307
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I have taken this opportunity to write and express my opinion of 
the settlement that has been reached in the Microsoft antitrust 
case. I believe that we need to concentrate on issues of greater 
importance . I am pleased that a settlement has finally been reached 
in this case and that Microsoft will be able to continue doing 
business as a whole entity. It is apparent to me that the people 
pursuing this litigation are not looking for a good judgment in this 
case but rather the perpetuation of their own personal agendas. When 
government becomes involved in business, socialism becomes the rule 
of the day. I feel that this case has been fueled by jealousy and 
that until we reach a conclusion to this litigation free enterprise 
is stymied. The terms of the settlement are fair: Microsoft has 
agreed to design all future versions of Windows to be compatible 
with the products of its competitors, and they will also cease any 
behavior that may be considered retaliatory. Please support this 
settlement. I trust that you will do all that is within your power 
to protect American businesses.
    Sincerely,
    Vanessa I. Castagliola, Leonard D. Castagliola Jr.



MTC-00028206

From: 
[email protected]@inetg
w
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    While I think that this settlement goes too far in restricting 
Microsoft and that this whole anti-trust case shouldn't have even 
been brought in the first place I'd really like to see this case end 
already.
    So I am in favor of this settlement agreement.



MTC-00028207

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Leave Microsoft alone. Let the free marketplace determine what 
is good for the free world. Get off their back!



MTC-00028208

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I agree with the proposed settlement. Let Microsoft continue to 
operate and excel at what it does well. If you want to go after a 
dangerous monopoly may I suggest Walmart. They have put more Mom and 
Pop Stores out of business and destoyed the competition than any 
other corporation in America.



MTC-00028209

From: TERRY C ANDERSON
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The following comments are submitted for the Court's 
consideration in the Microsoft case before it. Based on my recent 
experience in the transfer of my Internet service from Qwest to MSN, 
I am very disturbed about increasing Microsoft's influence and 
hegemony in the provision of Internet services. The changeover of 
services has not been managed well--;several errors caused 
frustration, lost information, and took much time to execute. I was 
led to believe that these difficulties occured because I was not 
coming from Microsoft software but rather from Netscape. I have 
spent hours talking to the technical assistance people to straighten 
this out. Let me add that simply getting to a person (rather than 
being routed through the branches of call answering systems) is a 
feat!
    While I was not required to switch to MSN, I was given no 
information on ways I could switch to another server. Nor could I 
locate such information from Qwest or MSN. In other words, I felt 
corraled (indeed compelled) to transfer to the Microsoft system, 
MSN.
    Now I'm subjected to advertisements and ``come ons'' 
whenever I log on. I strongly feel that it is a step backward for 
the consumer to allow Microsoft more control over Internet services. 
I am not a sophisticated computer user, but rather a person who 
struggles with the technology and gets by through simple, direct 
choices and customer-oriented service rather than glitz and 
promises.
    Please preserve my choice to obtain the best consumer services I 
can find, not force me into a gargantuan system that is removed, 
indifferent, and frequently inaccessible.
    Thank you for your attention to my concerns.
    Terry Anderson,
    Portland, Oregon



MTC-00028210

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
    Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt 
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has 
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop; 
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than 
``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors, 
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the 
computer user.
    This is just another method for states to get free money, and a 
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer 
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic 
industry the world has ever seen.
    Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Ramon P & Marie L Ramirez
    3295 N 153rd Dr
    Goodyear, AZ 85338-;8530



MTC-00028211

From: 
harry--;[email protected]@i
netgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Lets please put politics and competitors interests aside and 
settle this case. Stop tormenting the greatest success story of a 
company in the history of the world. Let Microsoft Live! Leave 
Microsoft Alone!



MTC-00028212

From: Aisen, Alex M.
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 1:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attached please find my comments, as an individual, on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement.
Alex M. Aisen
<>
CC: Aisen, Alex M.
Comments on Microsoft Settlement
    Alex M. Aisen
    I am writing these comments as a consumer, professional, and 
computer user. I am an academic physician, not an attorney, and 
readily admit I do not know the formal rules for a submission such 
as this. I believe the comments I am making are accurate, but much 
of what I write is based on what I have read and remember, but have 
not verified personally. I am writing as an individual only, and not 
as a representative of my employer.
    My position is that Microsoft is a company that has produced, 
and continues to produce much excellent software. But they often 
behave in ways which seriously harm both consumers and competitors, 
and this behavior is likely to get substantially worse if the 
proposed settlement is approved without substantial modifications. 
Like many others, I believe the settlement is far too lenient. The 
best way to encourage Microsoft to continue to produce top quality 
software in a way which truly benefits consumers is to ensure that 
there is competition, and to demonstrate to the company that if they 
behave in an illegal manner, they will be

[[Page 28201]]

punished in a meaningful way. The proposed settlement does neither, 
and should be substantially strengthened.
    Here is my list of many of the harmful behaviors I believe 
Microsoft to be guilty of. Some of these practices may be illegal; 
most are likely within the law. But it is clear that the only reason 
Microsoft has been able to get away with things such as I will 
mention is that they are a monopoly; their customers, be they 
corporate or individual, often have no practical choice but to play 
by their rules, onerous as they often are. Anticompetitive 
Activities. The activities outlined in the lawsuit several years ago 
by Caldera Corporation over the computer operating system DR-DOS, 
wherein Microsoft was alleged to have (and probably did) incorporate 
well camouflaged code in a version of Windows released to software 
developers that deliberately ``broke'' a competitor's 
product (DR-DOS, which at the time competed with Microsoft's MS-DOS) 
is an excellent example. This lawsuit was settled by Microsoft for a 
substantial sum.
    More recently, Microsoft has released a new version of Internet 
Explorer, version 6, which, unlike previous versions, is 
deliberately incompatible with plug-ins (third party accessory 
software) written in the so-called Netscape style. This deliberate 
incompatibility may be an attempt designed to further hurt their 
competitor, Netscape
    They have also removed support for up-to-date versions of the 
Java Programming language from the latest version of Windows, 
Windows XP. Java is a programming language developed by Sun 
Microsystems, that has been widely adopted by many software 
developers; it has the important virtue of being cross-platform. 
That is, programs written in Java can usually run on computer 
platforms other than Windows, for example the Macintosh, Unix, and 
Linux. By removing full support that Microsoft provided in earlier 
versions of Windows, Microsoft is hurting both developers who choose 
to use Java, and consumers such as myself who bought Java based 
software from these developers.
    Though I certainly cannot prove it, as a long time users of many 
Microsoft products, I think is possible or even likely that the 
company has sometimes introduced or permitted ``glitches'' 
in their software that interfere with competing products, but not 
with Microsoft's own. For example, in the past the Novell 
Corporation has produced a file sharing system that competed with 
Microsoft servers, allowing desktop PC's to store computer files and 
share printers via centralized server computers. I have found that 
there are numerous ``glitches'' when using Novell file 
servers, that seem not to be present when using Microsoft file 
servers. As a user, I have no real way of knowing whether these 
glitches are simply bugs or weaknesses in Novell's software code, or 
``deliberate'' incompatibilities hidden in the desktop 
versions of Windows by Microsoft. And even if there is no overt 
action by Microsoft, the fact that Windows software is proprietary, 
and the source code generally secret, can make it hard for 
competitors to produce products that interoperate with Windows.
    More recently, I personally found that I could no longer use a 
popular third party e-mail client, Eudora, with an enterprise 
Microsoft Exchange e-mail server. Microsoft had included, as an 
option, what I've read is a proprietary security feature called 
``secure password authentication.'' The enterprise had 
apparently started requiring that this protocol be supported by the 
client software. Since Eudora could not use this, I was forced to 
switch to a Microsoft program, Outlook Express. Now, Outlook 
Express, like Internet Explorer is presently a free program. And, I 
have insufficient technical information to determine what caused 
this particular incompatibility. However, I cannot help but wonder 
if this is part of a larger strategy to marginalize third party e-
mail clients like Eudora, and whether ot not Outlook Express will 
remain free if and when the competition is gone.
    Microsoft's treatment of potential competitors is important as 
well. An excellent example of the sort of thing they are capable of 
was recently described in the Wall Street Journal, concerning 
Eastman Kodak. Film-based photography is now being replaced by 
digital photography, and Kodak hoped to sell digital cameras and 
software, which consumers would install on their Windows-based 
computers. However, this was a market Microsoft wished to enter, 
either directly or through partners. So Microsoft reportedly 
designed new versions of Windows to steer consumers away from 
Kodak's offering, and to those supported by Microsoft. Ultimately, 
Microsoft backed down in this particular case. But one cannot help 
but wonder if, given a less powerful adversary than Kodak, or the 
absence of the ongoing legal activities, if the outcome might have 
been different.
    One additional example: the default home page on standard 
installations of Internet Explorer (which is part of every copy of 
Windows and hence part of most PC's sold) is the Microsoft Network. 
Thus, every time most consumers starts Internet Explorer, the web 
site they first see is Microsoft's own Microsoft Network. Now, it is 
possible to change the default home page, but most users either will 
not know how, or will not bother. So, this simple strategy puts 
other vendors of web portals at an extraordinary disadvantage.
    It has been widely reported that in pre-release versions of 
Windows XP, Microsoft incorporated a feature called ``smart 
tags'' which would allow them to direct users of the Internet 
Explorer web browser visiting just about any third party web sites 
to be ``directed'' at proprietary sites run by Microsoft 
or its corporate partners. When word of this feature was reported in 
the news (the Wall Street Journal), there was an outcry, and 
Microsoft disabled it. However, there is no reason why they could 
not activate it in the future, particularly if they feel their 
dominant position in the market place, and the lack of effective 
oversight, allows them to do so.
    Onerous Licensing Terms: Terms in Microsoft software licenses 
are often onerous, and it seems self-evident that the only reason 
Microsoft gets away with including them is that they are a monopoly. 
These onerous terms affect both consumers and businesses.
    Two recently publicized examples from consumer software are as 
follows. The EULA (end user license agreement) found in the download 
of Microsoft's very popular Windows Media Player, states 
``Digital Rights Management (Security). You agree that in order 
to protect the integrity of content and software protected by 
digital rights management (``Secure Content''), Microsoft 
may provide security related updates to the OS Components that will 
be automatically downloaded onto your computer. These security 
related updates may disable your ability to copy and/or play Secure 
Content and use other software on your computer. If we provide such 
a security update, we will use reasonable efforts to post notices on 
a web site explaining the update.''
    In other words, Microsoft reserves the right to automatically 
install software, without the users knowledge or permission, which 
may disable ``r software'' on the user's computer. 
Microsoft's newest operating system, Windows XP, incorporates an 
automatic update feature, which could easily be used in this manner. 
Though the putative purpose of disabling software is to enforce 
Microsoft's interpretation of digital copyright enforcement, t it is 
important to note that the language quoted above is very general; 
further, even properly intentioned disabling of software could have 
very adverse unintentional effects on an unsuspecting computer user, 
as has already been reported in the trade press concerned the 
automatic updates that occur with XP.
    The second example on onerous licensing terms is this language, 
which speaks for itself, which has been widely reported to be 
present in the printed EULA included with shrink-wrapped boxes of 
Microsoft's popular website authoring program, FrontPage: ``You 
may not use the Software in connection with any site that disparages 
Microsoft, MSN, MSNBC, Expedia, or their products or services, 
infringe any intellectual property or other rights of these parties, 
violate any state, federal or international law, or promote racism, 
hatred or pornography.''
    At the enterprise level, I have heard, and had limited 
experience with myself, licensing clauses that do such things as 
forbid companies from sharing performance test results performed on 
Microsoft software. Thus, companies can, and sometimes are, 
forbidden from sharing their experiences with Microsoft products 
with their corporate colleagues. Microsoft is even widely reported 
to have used such language to prevent the publication of comparative 
reviews of their products.
    Cost is an important factor as well. As Microsoft's monopoly in 
both operating systems and office productivity software has become 
entrenched, Microsoft uses its licensing terms to effectively raise 
prices substantially. For example, years ago, when there were 
competitors to Microsoft Office, the licensing terms on Office 
allowed concurrent user licensing. This is no longer allowed. More 
recently, other changes in its licensing terms require users to pay 
substantially more, oftentimes several-fold more, for software 
licenses. The important point is, I think, that Microsoft has 
substantially increased the cost of its

[[Page 28202]]

software to enterprise consumers over the years, and they often do 
this by changing the licensing terms, rather that 
``overtly'' increasing the price. The effect is the 
same--;the price goes up dramatically--;but the approach 
used by Microsoft may allow them to masquerade this fact.
    Finally, it is well known that Microsoft often include licensing 
terms and pricing strategies that pressure companies into making 
upgrades that they otherwise would not, thereby incurring 
substantial expenses in training, dealing with incompatibilities 
with other software, reduced efficiency from complex features that 
may not be needed, etc. Again, this is a practice that cannot 
practically be regulated; rather it is essential that there be 
viable competition to Microsoft to keep their licensing practices 
reasonable.
    Privacy. It is clear that Microsoft often uses its monopoly 
power in ways that seriously compromise privacy. The major reason 
Microsoft is able to do this, is that they are an effective 
monopoly. Several examples of such privacy invasion follow.
    Several years ago, it was discovered by a third party that all 
documents created by the then current version of Microsoft's 
ubiquitous Office software included a unique identifier that allowed 
the document to be tied to the system that first created it. 
Further, it appeared that Microsoft had a database of computer 
registrations that may have allowed this identifier to be tied to 
the actual individual who registered or purchased the computer. In 
other words, any letter created in Word could, with access to MS 
corporate databases, be tied to the computer, and perhaps even the 
individual who first wrote it. When this was publicized, Microsoft 
removed the ``feature.'' But, had this occurred today, 
with their position even more entrenched, they may not have felt 
this necessary.
    It is worth considering the privacy implications of Microsoft's 
latest operating system XP. XP incorporates functions that have 
serious privacy implications. Consider two features a user 
encounters when first installing or using Windows XP, Product 
Activation, and Passport. Product Activation is now required of the 
latest consumer versions of Windows and Office, and requires that 
users contact Microsoft after purchasing, but before they can use 
the software (to be precise, they are given a short time of use 
before product activation is necessary). During this contact, which 
will usually take place over the Internet, information about the 
users computer is transferred to Microsoft. The stated purpose of 
Product Activation is as an antipiracy measure, but the privacy 
implications are serious. Users have no choice but to send Microsoft 
information about their computer configuration; the nature of the 
information they send is not fully known, since the data sent is 
encrypted, and since Product Activation is a somewhat mysterious and 
proprietary process.
    There are even more serious privacy implications in the MS 
Passport system. Use of Passport is not theoretically required, as 
is product activation, but in practical terms most individual users 
will have to sign on to it. When a newly purchased computer is first 
turned on, the user is asked multiple times to sign up for Passport. 
Further, participation in Password is required to obtain technical 
support from Microsoft; as everyone who has used modem software 
knows, the need for technical support is inevitable. Passport is 
designed as a system to electronic commerce, and requires that a 
user provide significant personal information. One cannot help but 
be concerned about the collection of such information by a 
corporation with the ambitions and dominance of Microsoft. Again, 
viable competition and a robust marketplace would be the best means 
of ensuring that Product Activation and Passport not be used in ways 
that violate reasonable user privacy.
    Software Reliability: Software reliability, or, rather, the lack 
thereof, has become a major economic drain in this country. As 
computers become more ubiquitous, there are important safety 
concerns as well. It is important to note that the financial 
motivations for software vendors are not necessarily to produce a 
reliable product. Companies often charge fees for providing 
technical support, and indeed, this may be a substantial source of 
revenue. This revenue stream is enhanced the more complex and 
``buggy'' software is. Microsoft's consumer products used 
to come with free technical support; as the company's dominance has 
increased, they have discontinued this practice; they now generally 
charge consumers for technical support after a limited number of 
incidents that are ``free'' (or, rather, included in the 
price of the software). Corporations are on the hook for far greater 
fees, with large annual support contracts and per incident fees. 
And, because Microsoft's software is proprietary, the company is 
usually the only feasible source of technical support. The way to 
ensure that commercially sold software is make as reliable as 
possible is by competition in the marketplace.
    (It is noteworthy that, because software is licensed and not 
purchased, that the usual remedies in the civil courts for 
``buggy'' products do not generally apply to software. 
This may grow even more true if the software industry, lead by 
Microsoft, is successful in persuading state legislatures to pass 
UCITA (Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act), which many 
feel will effectively eliminate any legal liability for bug ridden 
software.)
    In summary, Microsoft is a great company that has produced many 
wonderful and useful products. However, there are many ways in which 
Microsoft's business practices harm consumers, both individual and 
corporate, as well as competitors. Were Microsoft not a monopoly, 
the marketplace would be the best policeman. But the company is a 
monopoly, and has been found by the court to become one through 
illegal means. It has demonstrated, and continues to demonstrate, a 
disdain for the legal system that should give us all pause. The 
solution must be to impose financial penalties, restrictions on 
conduct, and perhaps even structural changes on the firm that will 
restore competition and bring things back in to balance. The 
proposed settlement does not even come close to meeting this end; it 
is essential for the long-term health of the American economy that 
the court remedy this unfortunate situation.



MTC-00028213

From: 
[email protected]@i
netgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a consumer who appreciates the advances in the world of 
technology, it is difficult to understand the necessity of the 
Justices Department's suit against Microsoft. I do not even pretend 
to understand how technology works. I do understand the marketplace 
and as a consumer it is important to have access to products that 
can improve communication make it easier to access the abundance of 
knowledge in the world and to be able to enjoy a different venue of 
entertainment. Consumers with little doubt indicated they were 
comfortable with the Microsoft product. It appears the Justice 
Department may have had too much time and money on hand and needed 
to make a case against some profitable company. One of the beauties 
of the US is the ability of the consumer to define the marketplace 
by what works with ease affordibility and accessibility. It appears 
the other companies needed to improve their product with more 
creativity and ingenuity rather than turning to the Justice 
Department. When the consumer is unhappy then the Justice Department 
should intervene.



MTC-00028214

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I fully support the conditions of the Microsoft settlement.



MTC-00028215

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:34pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Laurel James
14023 NE 8th St.
Bellevue, WA 98007
Office # 425-;378-;8309
Attorney General John Ashcroft
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am writing this letter today to voice my support of the 
settlement reached between the Justice Department and Microsoft. In 
offering superior, well priced products Microsoft has made my life 
and my business easier to operate, I have always been extremely 
happy with their products.
    I believe that the enactment of the settlement agreement will 
spur innovation in the settlement process once more. The settlement 
agreement contains many stipulations that will benefit the 
technology industry. Microsoft has agreed under the terms of the 
settlement to disclose information about the internal interfaces of 
the Windows system. In addition to this, Microsoft has released 
contractual restrictions on developers who would wish to enter into 
multiple contracts.
    This lawsuit is old and worn out, and should go away as soon as 
possible for the

[[Page 28203]]

good of America and the economy, and for us, the happy Microsoft 
consumers.
    Sincerely,
    Laurel James



MTC-00028216

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:33pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I am against the proposed settlement. I believe the only fair 
solution is to split MS into 2 companies. One company would be 
operating systems. The other would be applications. The operating 
systems company would be required to publish all API's (application 
programming interfaces) to everyone. This would also eliminate the 
case of breaking another company's application with an upgrade 
without breaking Microsoft products.



MTC-00028217

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs
    I am in support of Microsoft not only because I am a small 
shareholder but I believe in capitalism. Microsoft has grown through 
research and innovative thinking and has fielded some excellent 
products which has made them the leaders in their markets. To go 
against them because their competitors cry foul is an incrouchment 
of the government into the free market system.



MTC-00028218

From: Carl Keil
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:34pm
Subject: Please Punish Microsoft
    Please uphold the spirit of the Microsoft verdict. They were 
found guilty of breaking the law. Please, don't bend over for bill 
gates. Punish Microsoft for breaking the law.
    Thanks,
    Carl Keil
    Portland, OR
    503-;231-;0894



MTC-00028219

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    get off microsofts back!!!



MTC-00028220

From: 
[email protected]@inet
gw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think it is wrong of the United States to do what they are 
proposing to do to Microsoft. I think Microsoft is a upstanding 
honest company. They are prosperous because of this and because they 
have many intelligent people working there. Maybe the government 
should help fund other companies that aren't as fortunate as 
Microsoft to give them a chance to compete. I think their decision 
could hurt them in the future. They may need Microsoft to help them, 
then what will they do?



MTC-00028221

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the Nov 3rd settlement with Microsoft is fair. 
Microsoft products have standardized the PC industry, enabled ease-
of-use, improved efficiency, created value, and reduced cost.



MTC-00028222

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is my opinion that Microsoft is responsible for uplifting 
America to the Top in Technology. This Anti-Trust Prosecution by the 
Clinton Adminisration is nothing less than Corruption for monetary 
gain. Microsoft should receive support from us and not Prosecution. 
This is a Common Sense company paid for with honest earned money. If 
our Nations leaders were not corrupt at the conception of this 
Lawsuit Common Sense says it would have never happened. Microsofts 
donations to the people of this Nation are another thing. They have 
given much to the good causes of our good people. If anyone is 
guilty of anything it is the Clinton Administation being guilty of a 
conflict of interest and Microsoft being a victim of its unethical 
outcome. If the truth be known and when it is the people will side 
with Microsoft. This is an opinion based on fact.
    Thank You
    Lester Hopper
    6294 Southlake Drive
    Hickory NC 28601



MTC-00028223

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    This is to express support for final acceptance of the 
settlement between Microsoft the Department of Justice, and the nine 
states. We urge you not to reject this settlement as any delays will 
not serve the interests of the American people but serve to further 
the causes of Microsoft's competitors who continue to choose to 
compete in the courts instead of the marketplace. The American 
people are insulted by claims that we have been harmed by Microsoft. 
In truth, we have been harmed by their competitors who have stalled 
progress in technology and in the economy. These suits must not be 
allowed to continue. Before said suits our country experienced 
unparalleled growth and prosperity. Our country regained its 
dominance in technology due to the innovation and growth of 
Microsoft and the many companies supporting their operating systems. 
We respectfully urge you to help return our country towards 
prosperity by rejecting further lawsuits and further delays in 
acceptance of the anti-trust settlement.
    Edward J. Barsano
    CEO NeuralTick Inc.



MTC-00028224

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel it is time to drop the law suit against microsoft. This 
country is based on competition and microsoft has a better product. 
Why is this wrong? I am also tired with spending money on a law suit 
that is over with. I demand that you drop this suit now!!!



MTC-00028225

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have tried AOL & Netscape and don't like them as well as 
Internet Explorer



MTC-00028226

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough already. The settlement is fair, stay with it.



MTC-00028227

From: alice-
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that in the best interest of everyone the lengthy 
antitrust case with Microsoft should be brought to an end. The 
litigation should not continue.



MTC-00028228

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Based on the issues that I have read, the only people who will 
gain from further harassment of Microsoft Co. will be the 
competitors and attorneys. No further penalty should be placed 
against MS.



MTC-00028229

From: 
[email protected]@i
netgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I can't state it strongly enough. The case against Microsoft was 
a stupid waste of taxpayer money! The end result was millions of $$$ 
wasted. Because Microsoft was getting its foot in EVERY door and its 
products were EVERYWHERE the end result of this total waste of money 
is to FORCE Microsoft to be in even more places than it is now! By 
forcing Microsoft to donate software to schools the court is MAKING 
Microsoft do the very thing it got into trouble for doing! Just DROP 
the whole thing and go away now before you waste any more of MY 
money in another pointless chase after Microsoft.
    I'll agree that there MIGHT be better things out there than what 
Microsoft produces. but I have seen NOTHING that forces me to use 
Microsoft. Did Microsoft FORCE Apple to charge too much for a MAC 
computer so that most people would choose to buy IBM? No. Did 
Microsoft FORCE IBM to hold Microchannel close to the vest and not 
let anyone else make Microchannel products? No. Both of these bone-
headed decisions

[[Page 28204]]

were made without Microsoft input. Did Microsoft benefit from Apple 
and IBM making stupid choices? You bet. So did I. The one GOOD thing 
about the case is that it kept a lot of lawyers busy and thinned out 
the crowds behind the ambulances.



MTC-00028230

From: 
[email protected]@inet
gw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Man (Microsoft) did business and some people felt they were 
cut out of the process. Since when is it the job of our justice 
system to make sure a business makes money. If you have all this 
time on your hands and want to spend our tax dollars, how about 
going after the electric and gas companies.



MTC-00028231

From: 
[email protected]@inetg
w
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsystems is obviously a monoply even after this decision. 
Therefore, if other monopolies were either split up or negated why 
was this one treated differently? I believe that they should have 
been advised to cease and desist their monopolistic practices. It 
would have been a sound warning to other companies to not replicate 
those actions.



MTC-00028232

From: 
[email protected]@ine
tgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the Microsoft case should be settled in its entirety 
and all states should have to abide by the Federal decision. To do 
otherwise undermines the economic system which has allowed America 
to be the economic power that we are.



MTC-00028233

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am very upset about the Microsoft Settlement. I did not really 
understand how upset until somebody from Americans for Technology 
Leadership called my home to harass me about how I needed to show 
support for the Microsoft Settlement. I have an unlisted number I 
don't even give it out to the credit card companies. Only my work 
and very few others (including Microsoft) have my number at all. I 
am possitive that my privacy has been invaded and I am not sure, but 
I think my civil liberties may have been violated by the disclosure 
of my personal information. The proposed settlement is stupid. It 
will give 3rd parties who did not purchase any software, were not 
affected by the lack of competition, and not forced to obtain 
certification from Microsoft, to profit. While on the otherhand, all 
those affected like customers, competitors, and professionals forced 
to certify and recertify will go uncompensated. Lastly it does not 
provide any measures for prevention of future violations. I think 
that any compensation should go to competitors, customers, and 
certified professionals who have suffered.



MTC-00028234

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the settlement reached in the Microsoft Anti-trust 
case is fair and equitable. Stop persecuting Bill Gates and let him 
get on with his work



MTC-00028235

From: 
[email protected]@ine
tgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir: America has always been the land of the free; to grow, 
to live, to achieve, to invent and to prosper. On the contrary it 
seems to me that when someone succeeds in business to the point of 
making large amounts of money someone or something starts to say 
this is not right he has to be stopped or he will have a monopoly. 
Leave Mr. Gates alone. He has been benevolent with his profits, 
employed thousands and inspired thousands to go into the electronic 
field. I am not as computer friendly as I would like to be, but at 
my age, I am doing the best I can with the help of my son. Spend my 
taxpayer monies and go after the Health Insurance Companies who are 
dictating who will get the proper care and who won't. I have tried 
to buy my own health insurance and have been refused because of my 
age, varicose veins, etc., etc. They didn't care if I could pay; 
they just didn't want to take the risk. I am sorry I am rambling but 
my point is there are important issues to take care of. If the 
product is good, people will buy it. If not, they will buy something 
else. Frankly I am glad my computer came equipped with Microsoft. It 
has served me well. I firmly believe in free enterprise. I don't see 
anyone going after China. They seem to have a Monopoly on every item 
sold in the USA. When I find something made in the USA, I buy it for 
a souvenir. Please leave Microsoft and Mr. Gates alone and go catch 
the bad guys. Thank you.....



MTC-00028236

From: 
[email protected]@in
etgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement should go through. Attempts by competitors of 
Microsoft to stop the settlement process amount to no more than 
using the American legal system for their own self-interested 
business needs.



MTC-00028237

From: 
[email protected]@inetg
w
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    They have an agreement arrived by compromise. Stop wasting 
T&M and proceed.
    ED



MTC-00028238

From: 
[email protected]@i
netgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have been watching the Microsoft case for a long time. It is 
time it was over. Please let the settlement stand.



MTC-00028239

From: 
[email protected]@ine
tgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    government should stay out of microsoft business.. that company 
provides the economy with lots of jobs and taxes



MTC-00028240

From: 
[email protected]@ine
tgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    No-one complained when Apple gave away systems to schools to get 
schools to buy Apple. No-one complains about AOL blanket ads on 
Time-Warner Cable. No-one suffered because of Microsoft but millions 
benefitted. At least they are real--;unlike Enron.



MTC-00028241

From: 
mutka--;[email protected]@ine
tgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsofts interests are compelling personal computer users to 
use their operating system. This operating system which is 
compelling me to act in ways that I would otherwise not choose 
exceeds healthy business. competition is neither fair nor just. 
Specifically I believe the physically and mentally disabled are 
marginally included in this revolution of communication, information 
and processing. Developers fear that the predators and reverse 
engineers await on the margins of one operating system (XP) at the 
ready to copy product(s) which are too young to defend themselves. 
In particular, I cannot use Government protection and resources in a 
capitalistic society to defend myself unless I can reasonably expect 
my most basic development assumptions are protected. These basic 
assumptions ought to have Microsoft preserve and create public Safe 
Haven operating system components that will promote software 
development which would not have to be redesigned because the 
Operating System has changed. Open Platform operating system 
proponents may find this a compromise. My example is my own product. 
I continue to struggle to design a product that is open platformed, 
meaning it should work on most operating systmens and within all 
browsers. My testing has found I must discover software bugs that 
seem to benefit the interests of the operating systems. I believe 
that these software bugs are not intentional but they are so 
numerous that a manager can work slowly on them and still be 
rewarded. This is unfair to the public. This Business market is NOT 
functioning normally! This is not a model of competition with room 
for a better business to succeed! This current business model is 
dysfunctional! I think this dysfunction works in the following way. 
Current Law allows the creation of conflict between software 
applications, hardware, and operating

[[Page 28205]]

systems when a competting business begins to spend resource to point 
out the unfairness and fix the software bugs.
    T



MTC-00028242

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    to whom it my concern...this whole matter has been nothing but a 
joke to me...a total waste of money and time...with the money and 
time spent on this whole debacle, all parties involved could have 
new technologies out there for everyone to have and us...but instead 
what we have is a company like AOL Time Warner looking for more 
money that they don t deserve(let them go out and do it instead of 
depending on another company to do it for them)...i think that 
Microsoft has done a good job and has worked hard to get where 
the're at...i will always buy and use their products...on the other 
hand i would never us or do anything with AOL Time Warner...sounds 
like to me they should be investigated for their aggressive business 
practices also...they are a legal monopoly by our own 
government...in closing its time to get back to work on newer 
technologies and get out of the court room... thank you very much...
    Martin C. Holgate



MTC-00028243

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I bought a new computer in November 2001. The operating system 
was Windows XP but the web browser was AOL!! Ican't understand why 
the states which are still pursuing the antitrust suit are being 
backed by the competitors of Microsoft. Barksdale and Ellison have 
beene crying spilled milk for years. I think the case should be 
settled and put to rest so that the country can get back to 
business.



MTC-00028244

From: John Gallant
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
RE: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    I have, as a stockholder of Microsoft, watched the antitrust 
proceedings with interest. It seems that the Government has worked 
an agreement that was fair to all parties and now wants to change 
terms and conditions relating to the settlement. I do not feel it is 
proper or fair that at this late date this be allowed to happen.
    I further feel that Microsoft is not responsible for individuals 
that create products that cannot compete in the marketplace because 
of their own shortcomings (e.g.. Netscape). I am further annoyed 
that my government sponsors what I consider a monopoly in the AOL / 
Time Warner merger. Now AOL is trying use Netscape as a platform to 
damage a perceived competitor, MSN. Try to visualize the PC software 
market before microsoft created and organized it. Our ability to 
communicate, organize and interface between businesses has been 
improved on a scale beyond anything we could have ever imagined 
prior to 1980. Why... Because Microsoft and its founders had a 
vision. This settlement represents the best opportunity for 
Microsoft and the industry to move forward, therefore I hope it will 
end the litigation.



MTC-00028245

From: 
[email protected]@i
netgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the U.S. government acted correctly to investigate 
Microsoft for anti-trust actions. I don't necessarily agree with 
every part of the decision handed down. I admit I haven't made time 
to read all the parts of the decision handed down. I am in favor of 
our society making market decisions for themselves in general. So 
the U.S. government should not restrict the free decisions of 
taxpayers to buy and sell what products they like.



MTC-00028246

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft is a leader in the technology field and needs to have 
the freedom to do what it does best. That is to improve the computer 
technology for everyones use. If there are a few who do not wish to 
use this technology from Microsoft they can choose to disregard what 
has and is being made available for the consumer. The consumer has 
the ability to decide what to use at home and at the workplace. Our 
government should not interfer with private enterprise and the the 
ideas of Microsoft or any company. The marketplace is where the 
decisions should be made aabout who wants to use what products. This 
lawsuit is frivolous.
    Thank you.



MTC-00028247

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am in agreement with the settlement that brings the lengthy 
anti-trust case to an end.



MTC-00028248

From: Phan, Anh
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 1:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Antitrust Department officer,
    I have read through the settlement proposal between the Justice 
Department and Microsoft. It sounds like it is a fair, effective way 
to resolve the issues within the merit of the case. I do not 
understand why other non-settled states and critics want to include 
a lot of different things falling outside of the scope of the law 
suite and still claim they are acting on behalf of consumers!!! Like 
judge Postner stated in his recent book, individual states should be 
excluded from the antitrust suite since they are acting for the 
interests of their own states only, not for the entire American 
people. The purpose of the lawsuit is to restore the fair 
competition environment in the industry, not to punish the 
successful company, rewarding the failures, or helping the 
competitors. American is a free market environment. It will go 
against our principle if we force a company to include the product 
of a rival company. If a company chooses to do so, it must come from 
their own decision. The government should not dictate a particular 
company how it would run its business. It should be free to run 
itself in its own creative way as long as it follows the general 
rules set and honored by every one. Freedom is the strength of our 
economy, our spirit and our lifestyle.
    Thank you very much for your time.
    Regards.
    anh.



MTC-00028249

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As an active member of my community and a firm believer in 
American ideals and constitutes, I needed to share my concern with 
you and the Department of Justice on how unnecessary and detrimental 
this on-going lawsuit against Microsoft is for our people and our 
nation as a whole. How can our government leaders not see that this 
attack on the Microsoft corporation is an attack on the American 
principles on which this nation was created ? I believe that by 
accepting the proposed settlement is the only step we can take which 
will move us forward. This agreement will monitor Microsoft's future 
production procedures, allowing the technology industry will be 
allowed to concentrate on business by creating innovative, 
comprehensible software to keep our IT market evolving.
    Your time and attention to this matter is appreciated and I look 
forward to seeing the end of this litigation once and for all.
    Sincerely,
    Lisa J Deriau
    10215 21st Avenue SE
    Everett, WA 98208



MTC-00028250

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a registered active voter who supports the settlement in 
the Microsoft matter. It is time to put this to rest and get on with 
technological innovation. I hope that special interests and 
competitors will not derail this settlement for their own selfish 
and greedy motives.
    David A. Pasqualini

[[Page 28206]]



MTC-00028251

From: John R. Callahan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed Microsoft-DOJ settlement is a judicial travesty. I 
hereby state that I strongly disagree with the proposed settlement 
and disapprove of the proposed settlement. I am a 20+ year computer 
professional (as a member of the Association for Computing 
Machinery), former (and tenured) academic, civil servant, and 
current executive in the private sector. Feel free to contact me 
with any questions or comments. I hereby place this comment in the 
public domain.
    (signed)
    John R. Callahan, Ph.D.
    [email protected]



MTC-00028252

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time to end the government's encroachment on private 
industry. Microsoft has worked well to become a leader in the 
technology industry while providing an exceptional product. Please 
end the anti-trust lawsuit and allow Microsoft to continue business 
as usual.



MTC-00028253

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:36pm
Subject: microsoft should pay!
    I strongly believe that microsoft broke the law and will 
continue to break the law unless strict rules with real consequences 
are brought to bear against the company. Microsoft is a monopoly 
that is using that monopoly to extend unfairly it's control over a 
huge portion of the US economy. Thank you for stopping this illegal 
company!
    joseph briggs



MTC-00028254

From: David Nadle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    I am pleased to have the opportunity to add my voice in support 
of the proposed Final Judgement. In my opinion the proposed Final 
Judgement protects Microsoft's right to define their product while 
protecting the right of OEMs to define theirs, and this is good for 
consumers.
    Sincerely,
    David L. Nadle, Ph.D.



MTC-00028255

From: UPEA
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:38pm
Subject: Microsoft
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    The Department of Justice has worked hard to find the compromise 
between the Microsoft Company and their competitors. I have followed 
this issue with interest because I believe that business should be 
allowed to find its own market. With this compromise now done, I 
hope the Department can approve the settlement and allow business to 
move forward.
    Sincerely,
    Audry Wood



MTC-00028256

From: Bob (038) Cathy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
ROBERT AND CATHY FRISBY
18523 Hottelet Circle
Point Charlotte, FL 33948

January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
Washington, DC
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    The Department of Justice has finally agreed to terms on a 
settlement that brings an end to the antitrust suit against 
Microsoft. We are writing this letter to express support for the 
settlement, and to ask that it is approved as soon as the public 
comment period is over.
    The faster this settlement is approved, the faster the economy 
can get back on its feet. We can't stand to sit and watch the market 
fall over 200 points one day, then rebound to close out the next day 
with gains over 120. The settlement will encourage competition, 
which will lead to better technology at a lower price. This 
hopefully we will give us some of the stability our economy needs, 
and can kiss goodbye to this recession. Microsoft does have to 
forfeit a good deal of technology to their competitors, and they 
will be monitored by an oversight committee who makes sure they are 
abiding by the terms of that settlement, but this will certainly be 
worth it in the long run.
    Everything is now in place for an exodus from this recession. We 
support this settlement, and hope it is implemented as soon as 
possible.
    Sincerely,
    Robert & Cathy Frisby



MTC-00028257

From: Chip
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel the remedy is fair and should end the case completely. I 
do not feel that Microsoft has hurt the public in any matter. Ten to 
fifteen years ago the computer industry was in a mess. There was no 
standard operating system. If you went to purchase a computer at 
Radio Shack you would get a computer running Deskmate. If you went 
to an Apple distributor you got the Apple operating system. If you 
went to IBM you got their OS operating system. And then of course 
you had Windows. Kids in school learned Apple but could not go into 
businesses and run their computers. The average person had to have 
an apple computer so their kids could do homework and an IBM 
computer so they could work at home. Since then and thanks to 
Microsoft the industry has been standardized, kids in school can go 
out in the world and run computers. Employees can go home and work 
on a computer with the same system they use at work. By becoming 
standardized, how does this hurt consumers? Microsoft has saved the 
average consumer thousands of dollars. By their continued innovation 
and development of the operating system they have added tools and 
recourses that would have cost the average consumer a lot of money. 
If Microsoft charged for each addition to its product, or forced the 
consumer to purchase such things as Internet explorer, word, 
notepad, a calculator, Paint, the basic TCP/IP protocols, the 
average person could not afford these add ons and would be shut out 
of the internet.
    As for Internet Explorer, that was the best thing that Microsoft 
ever did. It made surfing the web enjoyable. Question, did you ever 
try to use Netscape Navigator before Internet Explorer came along, I 
have and it sucked. You had to pay around $50.00 for it, it took 
several hours to down load and would crash so often that trying to 
look up one item would take hours. Microsoft came and gave you 
Internet Explorer, which at first had its problems, but when they 
finally integrated into the operating system, it was fantastic, you 
could surf the net and really enjoy the experience. System hangs and 
lockups that occurred often before integrating disappeared. And by 
integrating the software it saved me money, how DID this hurt me? I 
know the argument it hurt competition, my argument is it did not 
hurt competition, it caused competition. It caused Netscape to wake 
up and make a better product. At a more reasonable price, this let 
the consumer save money by being able to buy a better product at a 
lower cost. Microsoft did nothing wrong. Those consumers that wanted 
Netscape still continue to use it, if Netscape wanted to keep 
customers, and gain customers, they should have developed a product 
that knocked the socks out of Internet Explorer, but did they no, 
they cried and sued. They gave up, because they would not take the 
time and resources to develop a better product. I know the argument, 
how could they when they did not have the money because Microsoft 
was giving the product away. Simple, build it and they will come. 
The consumer wants better products and if the consumer found an item 
better, those that can afford will buy it.
    Is it wrong, to build your business, and to protect your 
business. NO, it is not wrong! Microsoft played hard ball, yes, but 
how is that different from any other company that wants to grow, 
expand, and make a difference. Netscape, AOL, Sun Microsystems and 
others are playing hard ball now, buy suing Microsoft, because of 
their jealousy over the dominance Microsoft has. If the companies 
really cared about the consumer, they would build better products 
that would blow Microsoft way. But do they no, the run and scream 
and sue Microsoft, because Microsoft does not play fair. If these 
companies would build better products on the same caliber as 
Microsoft, consumers will go there; they will buy what they want. 
But stripping down Windows will only hurt the consumer, because the 
costs associated with

[[Page 28207]]

buying each piece of software will be more than the average consumer 
can afford. But those that can afford the software will buy the 
better software. How is this any different from the auto industry? 
Yes, I know that there are several companies competing equally, If I 
went to ford to buy car should they be required to give me a 
stripped down car. So that I can go to Chrysler to purchase the 
motor, to Bose for the stereo, to Goodyear for the tires, to Monroe 
Muffler for the Shocks, and Muffler. NO, they provide the basic 
systems and then you buy the additional or custom items that you 
want. Microsoft does that they provide the consumer with the basics 
and let the consumer buy what they want. The problem is the other 
companies are not making products that are better and more 
desirable.
    End the lawsuit now and let Microsoft go back and build and 
innovate so that the envelope of information and knowledge becomes 
more reliable and available to the average consumer, and so that 
these other companies will be forced to push the envelope even 
further buy building better software. If these companies would just 
worry about building better software that pushes the limits, they 
would not have to worry about Microsoft.
    Thank you
    Gary E. Altman II



MTC-00028258

From: Stevens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:42pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Robert & Natalie Stevens
1717 Joshua Court
Palm Harbor, Florida 34683

January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Regarding the recent Microsoft Antitrust settlement, the PC 
industry, the economy and the stock market have suffered enough from 
this misguided lawsuit which was instigated by Microsoft's 
competitors who elected to compete via lobbying and courtroom 
tactics rather than in the marketplace. I firmly believe that 
litigation should come to an end. At this point, it seems ridiculous 
to prolong this case any further.
    Microsoft is much less of a problem than the Cable-Satellite-
Broadcast Cartel which has conspired to restrict trade by 
controlling what consumers will and will not be able to watch by 
forcing viewing ``packages''. Cable and DBS satellite 
providers mandate that ``packages'' must be purchased if 
you want to watch even one of the channels in the package. This lack 
of a la carte offerings forces consumers to buy a multitude of 
unwanted channels in order to see a few desired channels.
    Business Week (Jan 21, 2002 pg. 71) pointed out that AOL/Time 
Warner (and other cable and mini-dish satellite providers) are 
collecting $54 per month from its subscribers while Microsoft is 
lucky if it sells a home PC user a $90 operating-system upgrade 
every three or four years. If you are worried about monopoly power 
forcing consumers to pay more, Microsoft should NOT be your target, 
the Cable-Satellite-Broadcast Cartel should.
    The settlement proposed in early November of last year contains 
several restrictions and commitments to which Microsoft has agreed. 
In these commitments, Microsoft permits computer makers to replace 
access to Microsoft features with access to the competitor's 
software. This will require that Microsoft change certain interfaces 
necessary to the Windows'' operating system. However, the list 
doesn't end there. Microsoft has agreed not to retaliate against its 
competitors and to ensure this from happening, a three person 
technical committee will be formed to make sure that Microsoft 
sticks to the terms of settlement.
    As you can plainly see, Microsoft has more than paid for its 
previous actions. As I believe Microsoft to be a respectable 
company, I assure you that this settlement will more than suffice.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Stevens &
    Natalie Stevens



MTC-00028259

From: 
[email protected]@in
etgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:40pm
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 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,
    Don Williams
    2068 US HWY 71
    Clarinda, IA 51632



MTC-00028260

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
3575 Dutch Hollow Road
Strykersville, NY 14145-;9558

Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
January 26, 2002
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement between 
Microsoft and the US department of Justice. I think that government 
should stay out of free enterprise and this is a classic case where 
the three years of litigation reflects intense lobbying on behalf of 
the competition rather than a genuine concern for the American 
public.
    The terms of the settlement go beyond what was originally called 
for when the lawsuit began. Microsoft will be forced to increase 
relations with computer makers and software developers, disclose 
technological information to competitors, grant computer makers 
broad new rights to configure Windows, and form a three-person team 
to monitor compliance with the settlement.
    While I think that Microsoft is giving away too much, I think 
there is no alternative since further litigation could be 
detrimental to Microsoft's and our IT sector's future. Please 
implement the settlement and look out for the best interests of the 
American public.
    Sincerely,
    William Streicher



MTC-00028261

From: Kent Compton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice,
    I think a quick settlement with Microsoft is in the best 
interest of all consumers. Throughout this trial I've gotten the 
feeling that a majority of the issues were in large part due to 
weaknesses in Microsoft's competitors. My favorite example is 
Netscape which originally paved the way to making browsing the World 
Wide Web easy. Unfortunately, they became slow and unresponsive to 
the new features I wanted so I switched to Internet Explorer. Before 
the third version of, IE Microsoft's product was inferior. Once it 
was superior I made the change. If someone wanted to use the 
Netscape browser it's certainly not hard to find. I saw a link to it 
on both Time and People magazines'' web sites just last night.
    Don't prop up bad businesses with legal proceedings. The strong 
companies will survive and the weak ones should be tasked with 
changing their business models or perishing.
    Please settle this case so that I can focus on the important 
things like keeping my job. We all have more important things to 
focus on.
    Sincerely,
    Kent Compton
    907 W. Brittany Dr
    Arlington Heights, IL 60004



MTC-00028262

From: Paul Cantrell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am strongly opposed to the proposed final judgment of the 
Microsoft anti-trust case. It is weak, and unlikely to have any 
substantive effect on Microsoft's conduct.
    The PFJ places far too much trust in Microsoft's willingness to 
follow the spirit as well as the letter of the settlement. When the 
PFJ says in section III.J.1, for example, that Microsoft is required 
to share certain technical details, except when those details would 
harm security--;as determined by Microsoft itself!--;it 
nullifies any real power

[[Page 28208]]

the settlement has to force Microsoft to share the details the 
company most wants to hide.
    General opinion in the software world is that obfuscation is the 
enemy of security. A system is only secure if everyone knows how it 
works, and agrees it can't be broken. As a software engineer, it is 
unclear to me how hiding any API, protocol, or documentation would 
protect or enhance the security of any conceivable ``anti-
piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital rights management, 
encryption or authentication systems''. It is eminently clear 
to me, however, how Microsoft could cite unspecified ``security 
reasons'' to cripple execution of the judgment. Section III.J.1 
is a loophole, and only a loophole. So why is it present in the PFJ? 
The judgment is rife with similar problems. Microsoft must not be 
able to ``outsmart'' any judgment in this case. The 
current settlement fails that test miserably. Thank you for this 
opportunity for public comment.
    Paul Cantrell
    Software Engineer
    St. Paul, Minnesota



MTC-00028263

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:44pm
Subject: Fwd: Attorney General John Ashcroft Letter
CC: 
[email protected]@inetgw

    Attached is the letter we have drafted for you based on your 
comments. Please review it and make changes to anything that does 
not represent what you think. If you received this letter by fax, 
you can photocopy it onto your business letterhead; if the letter 
was emailed, just print it out on your letterhead. Then sign and fax 
it to the Attorney General. We believe that it is essential to let 
our Attorney General know how important this issue is to their 
constituents. The public comment period for this issue ends on 
January 28th. Please send in your letter as soon as is convenient.
    When you send out the letter, please do one of the following:
    * Fax a signed copy of your letter to us at
    1-;800-;641-;2255;
    * Email us at [email protected] to 
confirm that you took action.
    If you have any questions, please give us a call at 
1-;800-;965-;4376. Thank you for your help in this 
matter.
    The Attorney General's fax and email are noted below.
    Fax: 1-;202-;307-;1454 or 
1-;202-;616-;9937
    Email: [email protected]
    In the Subject line of the e-mail, type Microsoft Settlement.
    For more information, please visit these websites: 
www.microsoft.com/freedomtoinnovate/ www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-
settle.htm
12724 35th Place NE
Lake Stevens, WA 98258

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 encourage the Department of Justice to 
accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement. A settlement is available 
and the terms are fair, I would like to see the government accept 
the settlement and move on.
    Many people think that Microsoft has gotten off easy, in fact 
this is not true. Microsoft has agreed to many concessions in order 
to reach the settlement. The biggest being that Microsoft agreed to 
release part of the Windows base code to its competitors. This is so 
Microsoft's competitors can develop more compatible software. 
Microsoft has spent years and millions of dollars developing their 
products, now they are required to hand out part of their work.
    There is a big difference between companies that develop new 
products and companies that copy them. Unfortunately, the government 
has decided to harass the company that develops them. This issue has 
been drug out for over three year now; it is time to put an end to 
it. Microsoft and the technology industry need to move forward. It 
will be virtually impossible to move forward with this issue hanging 
over the industry's head, Please accept the settlement allow the 
industry to move on.
    Sincerely,
    Arnie Solvang



MTC-00028264

From: Terry Williams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    For the record, I was against the original lawsuit filed against 
Microsoft. As a consumer, I purchased my PC from Dell with Microsoft 
software installed. I made this decision based on past experience 
with their software. My PC came with Internet Explorer as my 
browser. I have experience in using Netscape and my personal 
preference is with Internet Explorer. As a consumer I could have 
made an easy change to my system and gone with Netscape. The 
original lawsuit was brought because someone felt that Microsoft had 
an unfair advantage by bundling all of their software together. In 
my opinion, this is a false premise and tends to lead us done a 
slippery slope. What will happen if Lotus 1-;2-;3 decides 
that Microsoft has an unfair advantage with bundling their Excel 
with other products. Price and quality were my major reasons for 
choosing Microsoft software. Because the best way for Netscape to 
compete is to create products that compete with Word, Excel, Power 
Point and Outlook Express. I have used Netscape email in the past 
and sincerely believe Outlook is a far better product.
    I retired on 12/31/99 from CSX Transportation as Director of 
Interline Switching. I have a Masters Degree from Johns Hopkins with 
a concentration in Information Technology. I believe overturning the 
original lawsuit and sending it back to the lower court is the 
correct approach. I believe Microsoft should be held harmless 
because a settlement will be giving into those members of Congress 
that opposes big business. As I have stated, ``There are market 
remedies for consumers who wish to use Netscape as their 
browser''.
    In closing, if someone spends their private capital and comes up 
with a automobile engine that runs on water, is the government going 
to step in and force the developer of this new engine to share it 
with everyone else? I hope your answer is NO, because when or if we 
adopt such a stand, all of the values and principles for which we 
stand will have been destroyed.
    Sincerely;
    Terry L. Williams, Retired
    12489 Turnberry Dr.
    Jacksonville, Fl. 32225-;4602 =



MTC-00028265

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: [email protected]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a software engineer employed in the computer graphics 
industry. I am not now, nor have I ever been affiliated with 
Microsoft or any of its competitors (except, of course, that I use 
products of both). The opinions and comments expressed are my own. I 
believe the settlement proposed by the Justice Department falls far 
short of what would be in the best interest of the industry and of 
the public. I am particularly concerned about the ability of 
Microsoft to effectively destroy certain popular and widely used 
standards such as OpenGL and Java.
    For software developers, such as me, these standards are 
valuable tools that we use to produce our products. Once they are 
firmly established and widely used, we can count on them to be 
available and supported for a variety of platforms and devices over 
a relatively long period of time. I consider these to be a kind of 
public asset that help to ensure that different products can 
communicate and be compatible with each other in various ways.
    Microsoft has the ability to erode or destroy these standards 
(and the motivation to do so) only because of the monopoly it holds 
on the operating system. In a competitive environment, no OS vendor 
would voluntarily drop support for widely used and still popular 
standards such as these, since that would give its competitors an 
important advantage in the marketplace.
    Suppose that the nation's electrical power were largely provided 
by a single company that was also in the electrical appliance 
business. This company realizes that by changing the standards for 
power distribution, it can make it much more difficult for any other 
company to connect to the power grid, or to produce appliances that 
will work in the vast majority of homes. I believe that this is in 
effect what Microsoft would like to do and IS DOING in certain ways.
    I fear that Microsoft next plans to target Internet standards, 
with the aim of making it more difficult for other software and 
platforms to effectively use the Internet and interact with Windows 
platforms. For most

[[Page 28209]]

companies, competitive market pressures would prevent this kind of 
action, but I believe Microsoft has demonstrated that additional 
regulatory restrictions are required to restrain a monopoly from 
such practices.
    Heber Bennion
    Salt Lake City, Utah
    [email protected]



MTC-00028266

From: Melbourne Anderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:46pm
3908 59th Street Court NW
Gig Harbor, WA 98335
January 27, 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 antitrust dispute. I support Microsoft in this dispute and 
would like to see this litigation resolved. Microsoft is a good 
company that has contributed a great deal to our society. 
Restricting this company will not benefit anyone. I support the 
settlement reached in November as a means to end this dispute. This 
settlement is fair and reasonable. Microsoft has agreed to license 
its Windows operating system products to the 20 largest computer 
makers on identical terms and conditions, including price. Microsoft 
has also agreed to design future versions of Windows to provide a 
mechanism to make it easy for computer makers, consumers and 
software developers to promote non- Microsoft software within 
Windows.
    During these difficult times, one of our highest priorities 
should be to stimulate our lagging economy. Restricting Microsoft 
will not accomplish this end. Please support this settlement. Thank 
you for your time. Sincerely,
    Melbourne Anderson



MTC-00028267

From: William R. Kesting
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I strongly believe that the terms-which have met or gone beyond 
the findings of the Court of Appeals ruling-are reasonable and fair 
to all parties involved. Please do what you can to bring this matter 
to a close.
    Sincerely,
    William R. Kesting
    President
    Kesting Ventures Corp.



MTC-00028268

From: Lisa Throneberry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lisa Throneberry
338 Knotts Circle Woodstock, GA 30188
770-;928-;8478 770-;516-;5059 fax
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing in full support of the recent settlement between 
the US Department of Justice and Microsoft. The antirust case has 
dragged on far too long to date and should be ended as soon as 
possible. Microsoft is a leading innovator of technology over the 
last decade. Under British definition a monopoly delivers poor 
quality products at inflated rates. Microsoft has consistently 
innovated excellent products and sold them at fair prices. They have 
also not infringed upon my rights as a consumer. I am free to 
purchase any software I desire.
    The terms of the settlement are not letting Microsoft off easy. 
They will have to document and disclose for use by competitors its 
internal interfaces and protocols. They will also be agreeing to not 
retaliate against computer makers and software developers who 
develop or promote software that competes with Windows'' 
operating system products. These concessions give a huge advantage 
to competition and violate the principles of free market economics.
    At any rate the settlement should be relied since the 
alternative of further litigation would be too much to bear for 
Microsoft, the IT sector, and our nation's economy. Please take the 
next step. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Lisa Throneberry



MTC-00028269

From: k l
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    I oppose such a preposterous resolution to the Microsoft case. 
In the last several years, the U. S. Court of Appeals has found 
Microsoft guilty of violating all rules of the anti-trust laws.
    Yet in the framework of the PFJ, better know as the Proposed 
Final Judgment, the DoJ throws out these findings, indicting 
Microsoft on all charges of business wrongdoing. More profound and 
astonishing is how the PFJ permits Microsoft to continue with its 
monopolistic practices. I am completely convinced you will receive 
similar sentiments entailing the various loopholes apparent in the 
final settlement.
    With the evidence presented, the PFJ does not even make an 
attempt to break up the software giant. What the PFJ permits is the 
following: permitting Microsoft to leverage its current monopoly 
positions and expand its business into several other technologies 
markets. In the past most monopolies were either broken up or 
carefully regulated. Why not Microsoft? Does AT&T ring a bell?
    At the same time, severe reprimands by the DoJ only hinder 
instead of instigating change with Microsofts existing operation 
methodologies. Time and time again as history will show, Microsoft 
will abuse its monopoly position. Breaking up Microsofts business 
into several parts just might be the best antidote to prevent MS 
from even doing more damage to the industry. In closing your honor, 
I submit to you my disapproval of the Proposed Final Judgment.
    Sincerely,
    Mr. Amor Paraso
    7230 Adams Road
    Magna UT 84044



MTC-00028270

From: Shanti Kulkarni
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Regarding the Microsoft settlement, I hope the court will ensure 
that any settlement is strong enough to ensure a level of 
competition which provides value to the public and encourages 
innovation. As was shown by the 1995 ruling, Microsoft will simply 
weasel out of any agreement that does not include a strong 
enforcement mechanism. It will use any provided wiggle room to 
integrate any emerging PC or Internet technology into its all-
consuming operating system. Given the monopoly that Windows enjoys, 
such integration has the effect stifiling innovation by unaffiliated 
vendors, and denying the public the value of potential competition. 
It is in the public interest that Microsoft be barred from doing so 
again, as it did with its Internet Explorer, and is currently doing 
again with Media Player. I urge the court to reject DOJ's proposed 
settlement, and any settlement that lacks strong enforcement and 
heavy penalties for failing to comply with its terms.
    Shanti Kulkarni, CCNP, CNE, RHCE
    Sr. Network Engineer, Deltek Systems
    703-;734-;8606 x4590/
[email protected]



MTC-00028271

From: Webb, D. Clinton
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 1:51pm
Subject: Comments on U.S. v. Microsoft Corporation settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    I am troubled by the terms of, and procedure for seeking the 
settlement of, the antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of 
Justice and Microsoft Corporation.
    First, I urge the court to confirm whether the parties have 
strictly adhered to the requirements of the Tunney Act. Second, I 
urge the court to investigate whether Microsoft Corporation has 
improperly discussed details of the settlement with Congress. Third, 
I urge the court and the parties to confirm that the proposed 
settlement will have the pro-competitive effects of opening the 
browser market to third parties, particularly in light of (i) the 
parameters of the Sherman/Clayton antitrust act; (ii) Netscape/AOL's 
recent lawsuit against Microsoft for alleged anticompetitive 
business practices in the web browser market; (iii) improper / 
unlawful bundling of Microsoft's web browser and operating system; 
(iv) anticompetitive original equipment manufacturer operating 
system licensing practices.
    In addition, I would like to add the following to the public 
comment process, as it relates to the conclusion of the Microsoft 
antitrust proceedings:
    As an attorney, a Windows operating system and Microsoft 
Internet Explorer equipped computer user, and more importantly, an 
American citizen, I am

[[Page 28210]]

troubled by the fact that the following summation of anyone's chance 
at bringing Microsoft to justice receives this type of response from 
the popular press: Quoted from http://forum.fuckedcompany.com/fc/
phparchives/search.php'search=microsoft
    Netscape sued Microsoft. I predict:
    1) It finally goes to court after a year
    2) Microsoft appeals and tries to delay every court date
    3) Microsoft is found guilty
    4) They appeal
    5) Two years have passed
    6) More Microsoft products dominate the market
    7) Microsoft settles with an arbitrator for $10 million
    8) Netscape is pissed
    9) Microsoft wins
    (you may insert any company or product into the above places 
where Netscape is)
    Thank you for your consideration of this (informal) comment.
    Sincerely,
    D. Clinton Webb
    Palo Alto, California
    [email protected]



MTC-00028272

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW
    Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    My qualifications:
    Bachelor of Science in Computer Science 1975
    Over 20 years of computer programming, software installation, 
and computer repair experience
    My overall complaints of the content of the ``Proposed 
Final Judgement''
    1) No attempt to remedy the past gains in market share and 
capital amassed by Microsoft through the unfair, illegal, and anti-
competetive business practices employed in the intentional quest to 
dominate the PC market.
    2) No attempt to remedy or control the proliferation of 
Microsoft Office, which is dominant at least in part due to 
Microsoft's API secrecy, bundling, tie-in, and interoperability 
tactics. Forcing complete disclosure of the file formats used would 
be a minimal attempt at restoring competition to this area.
    3) No attempt to regulate Microsoft's behavior in non-desktop PC 
markets ( wireless, handheld, internet services, etc. ) where they 
have the leverage and funding amassed to date to overwhelm the 
competition in any emerging market that they choose to enter.
    4) The PFJ contains enough loopholes and Microsoft-friendly 
definitions to let this company, famous for its past indiscretions, 
continue to flaunt the intent and purpose of this judgement.
    Specific objections to the terms:
    III Prohibited Conduct
    J 2 ``(c) meets reasonable, objective standards established 
by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of its 
business, (d) agrees to submit, at its own expense, any computer 
program using such APIs, Documentation or Communication Protocols to 
third-party verification, approved by Microsoft, to test for and 
ensure verification and compliance with Microsoft specifications for 
use of the API or interface, which specifications shall be related 
to proper operation and integrity of the systems and mechanisms 
identified in this paragraph. THIS ALLOWS MICROSOFT THE LEEWAY TO 
REFUSE TO COOPERATE WITH OPEN SOURCE DEVEOPERS, WHOM THEY VIEW AS 
THE MOST SIGNIFICANT THREAT TO THEIR MONOPOLY.
    The DOJ should not allow the criminal to define the terms, but 
rather specifiy that the API shall be available to developers at 
reasonable, fixed cost.
    VI Definitions
    N. ``of which at least one million copies were distributed 
in the United States within the previous year.``
    THIS STIPULATION IS A BARRIER TO ANY STARTUP COMPANY, and is 
unnecessary.
    R.``Timely Manner means at the time Microsoft first 
releases a beta test version of a Windows Operating System Product 
that is distributed to 150,000 or more beta testers.``
    DOES THIS MEAN THAT MICROSOFT CAN HAVE 149,000 BETA TESTERS 
WITHOUT REVEALING API SPECIFATIONS TO OUTSIDE DEVELOPERS?
    Please, substitute wording that promotes fairness.
    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. 
HERE WE GO AGAIN. LIMITING THE REMEDY TO ONLY ONE SEGMENT OF 
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, WHILE MICROSOFT USES ITS CLOUT IN ANY 
EMERGING MARKET THAT IT CHOOSES TO ENTER.
    Please apply the restrictions more broadly.
    Conclusions:
    The Proposed Final Remedy is too little, too late. If fails to 
properly regulate Microsoft's business practices in the future, 
while wholly neglecting to apply any remedy for the misconduct of 
the past. The comsumers and software developers and even the 
hardware developers are NOT adequately served by this document.
    If the Department of Justice will not enforce the anti-monopoly 
law of this country, then where can we, the citizens, look for 
remedy ?
    Tom B. Younker
    777 Riderwood Dr.
    Decatur, GA 30033
    404-;248-;8082
    Ownere/Member of Dare Computer, LLC
    404-;248-;0336



MTC-00028273

From: Ronald K Finn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    It is my opinion that Microsoft has been hurt enough. We owe a 
lot to that company for what we have today. It will serve no purpose 
to the American public to penilize them further.
    Sincerely,
    Ronald K. Finn,
    6507 Rob Road,
    Black Hawk SD. 57718



MTC-00028274

From: Gary Shapiro
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 1:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
OLE--;Obj
January 28, 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington DC 20530-;0001
Re: United States v. Microsoft Corp., Civil No. 98-;1232
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Microsoft has been a valued exhibitor and partner in the 
International Consumer Electronics Show for several years. Bill 
Gates has also been a featured keynote speaker at the CES several 
times in the last ten years. In introducing Bill Gates to the 
audience the last two years I used a collection of concepts I 
summarize below. I hope that in approving the settlement you 
consider some of the sentiments expressed. Not only does litigation 
cost the business community and taxpayers billions of dollars every 
year, but additionally, long drawn-out court battles distract 
businesses from focusing on their core productive operations. With 
the U.S. now officially in recession and in the face of new concerns 
domestically, a settlement is needed to provide stability for the 
industry that has driven the new economy over the last decade.
    Ultimately, Microsoft's story is our nation's story. It's about 
how ideas and a small scrappy upstart can become a world leader and 
change the face of history. Our country and Microsoft started with 
driven people pursuing a dream and providing a compelling benefit. 
Microsoft offered anyone access to freedom by providing a simple 
interface to conquer the complexities of a computer. Our founding 
fathers gave us freedoms embodied in the structure and the standard 
of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The American Bill of 
Rights are becoming accepted by the world and improving the world 
standard of living. So, too, are the Microsoft standards being 
accepted and improving the lives of millions around the world.
    In the Information Age, Microsoft gave us access to information. 
Microsoft is to other

[[Page 28211]]

corporations what our country is to the rest of the world. Both are 
the new kids that did well. Each started as an idea. Each became a 
world standard. These standards have changed the world for the 
better. For computer users, Microsoft made it simple to create, edit 
and send documents and presentations anywhere in the world. I had to 
edit presentations recently in Egypt, Germany and Switzerland and I 
was comfortable this year using others'' computers in these 
countries as they all used Microsoft products.
    Microsoft has improved the world's standard of living. Microsoft 
standards increase world productivity by making computers everywhere 
easy to use. Without the Microsoft standard it is doubtful so many 
people would be comfortably using computers. Microsoft has not only 
made many investors happy, it directly employs some 40,000 
exceptional people in some 60 countries. More, many others are 
employed because of Microsoft products. Microsoft also exports more 
than it sells domestically. With this positive economic activity, 
terrific products, and reputation for charity, any other country 
would consider itself blessed to have Microsoft headquartered within 
its borders, adding to its tax rolls and employing its citizens.
    There is a Yiddish word, ``mensch''. It means doer of 
good and applies to someone who you know well and does good things 
for people. I submit to you that when a company or individual does 
good things of such magnitude then they too can wear the 
``mensch'' mantle. Not only has Microsoft improved the 
world's standard of living, but its founder Bill Gates along with 
his wife Melinda, have donated some $21 billion to the Bill and 
Melinda Gates Foundation for global education and healthcare. The 
magnitude of how Microsoft has changed the world and this generosity 
are so large, that I submit to you both Microsoft and Bill Gates 
deserve the appellation ``mensch''.
    Sincerely,
    Gary Shapiro
    President and CEO
    Consumer Electronics Association
    www.ce.org



MTC-00028275

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am a retired government employee who taught software courses 
for the Navy. My students included military as well as civilians. 
These were the teams, made up of both men and women, that produced 
training manuals and exams for the Navy.
    After testing many different software programs Microsoft was 
chosen for a number of reasons; it was very computer friendly and 
the company offered help desk assistance when no other company did. 
At that time, because all of us were new to computers, these were 
most compelling reasons. I do not understand why our government, in 
this country of freedom and opportunity, insists on the continued 
harrassment of this young man. Who's next? What other country in 
recent times has produced such a creative mind? Has democracy 
actually come to this?
    Sincerely,
    Bettye D. Schmollinger
    CC:[email protected]@
inetgw



MTC-00028276

From: Anna Gallegos Brannon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Thank you for your time and consideration.
    Anna Gallegos-Brannon
    President, LULAC Council #3027
January 28, 2002
Renata B. Hess
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
via email ([email protected])
VIA FACSIMILE: 202/307-;1454 (or 202/616-;9937)
SUBJECT: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    The League of Latin American Citizens--;Long Beach Council 
believes that the proposed settlement of the Microsoft antitrust 
case amounts to a reward for misconduct. Indeed, the settlement is 
so good for Microsoft, that it is attempting to buy off those who 
oppose it with an offer to California and other states to pay their 
legal costs--;if they will step aside and let the sweetheart 
deal go ahead unchallenged.
    This astonishing offer merely confirms the notion that Microsoft 
believes that all of its errors can be wished away by money. And, 
it's not the first time that Bill Gates'' company has reached 
into its treasury and come up with dollars for politicians. During 
the 2000 political campaign, the company spent more than $6 million 
on contributions to political campaigns, state parties and political 
action committees. One can only assume, it hoped to generate 
political pressure for a favorable settlement.
    Whatever the reason, Microsoft has managed to negotiate a 
settlement, which to a remarkable degree would make it the arbiter 
of its own compliance--;an astonishing turnabout for a company 
that has repeatedly skirted U.S. antitrust law and found guilty by 
several courts of abusing its monopoly power. California Attorney 
General Bill Lockyer is right to resist the settlement and to 
continue to press for a tough remedy that would limit Microsoft's 
ability to leverage its Windows monopoly and extend its market 
domination into more facets of our information age economy.
    Nine state Attorneys General and the Corporation Counsel of the 
District of Columbia chose not to support the current Microsoft 
settlement and have offered proposals that will adequately address 
the agreement's loopholes. More specifically, these proposals 
require that Microsoft fulfill both technical and licensing 
obligations that will bring greater competition to the software 
market and greater choice to consumers. In addition, the proposals 
include more enforceable oversight provisions and stricter penalties 
in the event Microsoft does not comply with the settlement. The Long 
Beach Council of LULAC supports these proposals and urges the Court 
to adopt them.
    Anna Gallegos Brannon President, LULAC Council #3027
    Long Beach Council #3027
    3824 East La Jara Street,
    Long Beach Ca 90805
    Phone 562 633 3853
    Fax 562 590 6494



MTC-00028277

From: Thane Perkins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It think the settlement is a step in the right direction. 
However, I do not think it is a big enought step. I am not one in 
favor of splitting Microsoft up or fining MS tens of billions of 
dollars. However, there are some marketing practices that Microsoft 
is still employing and will continue to employ because they are 
successful. Unless Microsoft is additionally shackled in some way so 
that they stop doing these things, Microsoft will use the power and 
money that they got from their previous illegal business practices 
to continue to stifle competition and ultimately hurt innovation:
    1) Microsoft does innovate and will occasionally surprise me. 
However, they often eye a successful idea and decide to develop a 
similar application. This is not bad in an of itself. But, instead 
of trying to do compete with improved functionality, Microsoft uses 
their huge cash reserves to worm their way into the market. If they 
are way behind the competition, they GIVE the new software 
AWAY--;either by integrating it into their operating system or 
doing special ``deals'' with OEMs so people get the 
software free or dirt cheap. So, even if the settlement stops 
Microsoft from making exclusionary deals with OEMs, Microsoft will 
out-price the competition.
    2) Microsoft is a master of the VAPORWARE. They can really put a 
damper on the sales of a competing product simply by making a press 
announcement. I wish they would be restricted about the number of 
days prior to releasing a completely new product could Microsoft 
announce its development.
    And finally, it is 2002--;a long time since the original 
suit was brought and an eternity in terms of the High-Tech industry. 
Remember, this suit was brought because Microsoft had broken a 
previous agreement with the DOJ. So, what happens if Microsoft 
breaks this agreement? Will we have to wait nearly a decade for the 
next decision--;allowing Microsoft to do business as usual in 
the mean time?



MTC-00028278

From: MD Dbeis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
M.D.
CS&S Computer Systems, Inc
1505 W. University Dr. Suite 103
Tempe, AZ 85281
www.css-computers.com
480-;968-;8585
480-;968-;9544 FAX

[[Page 28212]]

Tel (480) 968-;8585
CS&S Fax (480)968-;9544
Computer Systems
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
DOJ, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    The way that this lawsuit against Microsoft has quickly 
degenerated into a vengeful exchange of threats of breaking the 
company up should give pause to any of us in the IT business. It 
should be acknowledged that Microsoft has not carried itself in the 
noblest fashion at times, but this alone should not be cause enough 
to drag the company through the federal courts. Furthermore, if this 
sort of action can be so easily brought against a company like 
Microsoft, then other IT companies may soon find themselves in a 
similar position.
    For the sake of clarity, this settlement should be endorsed by 
all. At it stands, the terms of the settlement go beyond the scope 
of the original lawsuit. They address the notorious issue of 
Microsoft's relationship with OEMs, and now Microsoft will have to 
change the way it sets up contracts with other companies that 
distribute Windows as well. Of course, its greatest advantage is it 
will bring to an end this cycle of negative posturing between those 
on the government's side and those on Microsoft's. My business was 
noticeably pinched by the lawsuit, and I--;and man), others-
cannot afford to have the entire IT business in a wait-and-see 
attitude to see if Microsoft will be split up.
    I support this settlement, and convey my hope that this kind of 
litigation against an American company will not happen again any 
time soon.
    Sincerely,
    Mountasir Dbeis
    CEO
    cc: Representative Jeff Flake
    1505 West University Dr. Suite 103
    Microsoft
    CERTIFIED PROFESSIONAL
    Tempe, AZ 85281
    Product Specialist



MTC-00028279

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Goverment, please dont distry such a great and valueble 
company as Microsoft. All ``nonefair-monopolist'' 
accusations are result of their competitors and lobby.
    Huge progress of the human civilization build by Microsoft. 
Millions worked place in the world.
    CC:[email protected]@in
etgw



MTC-00028280

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:57pm
Subject: Microsoft case settlement
    I hope the government will settle this case. I love the 
Microsoft products and own the stocks. It has been one of the best 
American companies of all time. It is time to stop beating up on 
them. Let the other companies that don't like Microsoft make 
products that are better and let them stop trying to use the Courts. 
Alan Sirkin



MTC-00028281

From: MOHINDER AGARWAL
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:57pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Dear Sir;
    I believe the terms-which have met or gone beyond the findings 
of the Court of Appeals ruling-are reasonable and fair to all 
parties involved. This settlement represents the best opportunity 
for Microsoft and the industry to move forward.
    So I support the settlement.
    Mohinder Agarwal



MTC-00028282

From: Pamela Mann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:57pm
Subject: Microsoft
    In short, I would like to see no action which tramples on the 
freedom to be innovative and resourceful in the business arena. 
There are always victims that feel their rights have been 
compromised when beaten at the finish line. The entrepreneurial 
spirit is what makes America great.
    Thank you,
    Pamela Mann
    Sr. Sales Director
    Mary Kay Cosmetics



MTC-00028283

From: Suzanne Lavine
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please adopt the agreed on the terms of the settlement. Please 
stop wasting tax payer's money and everyone's efforts on something 
that should be done and over with.



MTC-00028284

From: Klain, Ronald
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov',Klain, Ronald
Date: 1/28/02 1:58pm
Subject: RE: Microsoft Settlement- Tunney Act Comments
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
 Re: Comments of AOL Time Warner
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    In the attached ``PDF'' file, you will find the 
Comments of my client, AOL Time Warner, on the proposed final 
judgment in U.S. v. Microsoft. Please accept these for the Court's 
consideration under the Tunney Act, 15 U.S.C. 16.
    We will also be submitting these in ``hard copy'' form 
as well. Please do not hesitate to call me at 
202-;383-;5317 if you have any questions.
    Sincerely,
    Ronald A. Klain
    O'Melveny & Myers
    <>
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF 
COLUMBIA, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff, v. MICROSOFT 
CORPORATION, Defendant Civil Action No. 98-;1232 (CKK)
    STATE OF NEW YORK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 
Defendant Civil Action No. 98-;1233 (CKK)
    COMMENTS OF AOL TIME WARNER ON THE PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION--;1
THE COURT SHOULD USE THE REMEDIAL OBJECTIVES ESTABLISHED BY THE DC 
CIRCUIT IN THIS CASE AS THE STANDARD FOR ASSESSING WHETHER THE PFJ 
IS ``IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.''--;4
II.
AS MICROSOFT STARTS TO IMPLEMENT MOST OF THE DECREE'S PROVISIONS, 
THE COURT SHOULD CONSIDER HOW--;IF AT ALL--;OEMS ARE 
RESPONDING--;9
There Is No Indication That Microsoft's Implementation Of Major 
Aspects Of The PFJ Is Even Beginning To Promote Competition Or 
Helping To Loosen Microsoft's Control Over The Desktop--;10
B.
The Provisions Of The PFJ Implemented By Microsoft Since July 11th 
Are Not Showing Signs That They Will Work To Restore Competition In 
The Browser Market--;14
III.
THE PFJ IS NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST BECAUSE IT DOES NOT EVEN 
ATTEMPT TO HALT MICROSOFT'S MOST INSIDIOUS PRACTICE: ITS ILLEGAL 
BINDING AND BUNDLING OF MIDDLEWARE APPLICATIONS WITH THE WINDOWS 
OS--;17
a.
The Court Of Appeals Explicitly Held That Code Commingling--;A 
Form Of Tying Unaddressed By The PFJ--; Violates Section 2 Of 
The Sherman Act--;19
g.
Microsoft Uses A Variety Of Other Tying Practices To Maintain Its 
Operating System Monopoly; If The Monopoly Is To Be 
``Terminated,'' Such Contractual Tying Must Be 
Prohibited--;24
By Allowing Microsoft To Continue To Tie Its Middleware Applications 
To Windows, Microsoft Retains One Of The Most Valuable 
``Fruits'' Of Its Illegal Acts--;31
THE PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT FURTHER FAILS THE PUBLIC INTEREST TEST, 
BECAUSE IT DOES NOT ACHIEVE EVEN THE LIMITED OBJECTIVES THAT IT 
HOLDS OUT AS ITS AIMS--;33
A
Tile PFJ Allows Microsoft To Continue Engaging In Discriminatory And 
Restrictive Licensing Agreements To Curtail The Use Of Rival 
Middleware Products--;34
B
The PFJ Requires Microsoft To Disclose APIs Only In Certain, Narrow 
Circumstances--;39
C

[[Page 28213]]

    The PFJ Does Not Ban Many Forms Of Retaliation By Microsoft 
Against OEMs--;42
D
The PFJ Does Nothing To Remedy Microsoft's Illegal Campaign To 
Eliminate Java--;45
E
The PFJ Includes A ``Gerrymandered'' Definition Of 
Middleware--;47
F.
The PFJ Lacks A Meaningful Enforcement Mechanism--;50
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE STRONGLY MILITATE IN FAVOR OF 
GATHERING EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY--; EITHER IN A HEARING, OR 
THROUGH THE USE OF THE RECORD FROM THE REMEDIAL PROCEEDING--;TO 
DETERMINE IF THE PFJ MEETS THE PUBLIC INTEREST TEST--;53
A.
The Complexity And Significance Of This Case--;And The 
Inadequacy Of The CIS--;All Militate In Favor Of A Heating On 
The PFJ--;53
The Court Should Conduct A Proceeding--;Taking Evidence And 
Heating Testimony, If Necessary- To Determine How The PFJ's 
Provisions Have Functioned Since Some Were Put In Place In 
2001--;56
In Making Its ``Public Interest'' Determination, This 
Court Should Take Into Account The Evidence That Will Be Adduced In 
The Upcoming Remedial Proceeding--;58
CONCLUSION--;61
    COMMENTS OF AOL TIME WARNER ON THE PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT 
Pursuant to Section 2(b) of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties 
Act, 15 U.S.C. §;16, AOL Time Warner respectfully 
submits the following comments on the Proposed Final Judgment 
(``PFJ'') in the above-referenced matter.
    INTRODUCTION
    The Proposed Final Judgment sets forth a decree that is too 
limited in its objectives and too flawed in its execution to meet 
the Tunney Act's ``public interest'' test. It allows 
Microsoft to continue to bind and bundle its middleware applications 
with its Windows Operating System (``OS'')--;even 
though tile Court of Appeals found Microsoft's actions in this 
regard to be illegal. And its patchwork of constraints on 
Microsoft's conduct is so loophole-ridden and exception-laden as to 
render its provisions ineffective. As a result, the PFJ is 
inadequate to promote competition and protect consumers, and the 
Court should refuse to find that its entry would be ``in the 
public interest.'' 15 U.S.C. * 16(e).
    The PFJ comes before the Court in an unprecedented posture for a 
Tunney Act proceeding. This proposed settlement was 
reached--;not as the case was being filed, nor as it was being 
tried, nor even as it was being appealed--;but rather, after the 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously 
affirmed a finding of illegal monopoly maintenance by Microsoft. 
Such circumstances surely require a more rigorous application of the 
``public interest'' standard than a case is settled before 
the first interrogatory is even served--;the usual situation 
when a Tunney Act review is conducted. Helpfully, a readily 
available and judicially administrable measure of the ``public 
interest'' is available for use in this special circumstance: 
the four-part test for ``a remedies decree'' established 
by the DC Circuit in this very litigation. United States v. 
Microsoft, 253 F.3d 34, 103 (DC Cir. 2001). Applying this standard, 
we believe that the Court should find the PFJ to be in the 
``public interest'' only if it (1) ``unfetter[s] a 
market from anticompetitive conduct''; (2) ``terminate[s] 
the illegal monopoly''; (3) ``den[ies] to the defendant 
the fruits of its statutory violation''; and (4) 
``ensure[s] that there remain no practices likely to result in 
monopolization in the future.'' Id. (internal quotations 
omitted). We believe that there are at least three reasons why the 
Court should conclude that the PFJ does not meet this test.
    First, since July 11,2001 (for the browser) and December 16, 
2001 (for other middleware), Microsoft has been implementing many of 
the PFJ's remedial provisions. Thus, the Court need not speculate 
about the impact these provisions would have on the industry if they 
were put in place; rather, it can seek submissions and review 
evidence on whether these critical provisions are beginning to work 
as they are being implemented by Microsoft. We believe that any such 
inquiry will reveal that the original equipment manufacturers 
(``OEMs'') are not exercising the flexibility that the PFJ 
ostensibly provides them, because the loophole-ridden PFJ gives too 
few rights to the OEMs and does too little to protect the OEMs in 
the exercise of those rights. As a result, there is little reason to 
believe that the PFJ will prove effective in restoring competition, 
terminating Microsoft's monopoly, or stripping Microsoft of the 
fruits of its illegal acts.
    How wide a ``gap'' between a hypothetical litigated 
result and the proposed settlement is permissible in these 
circumstances is a question that need not be answered here because 
the PFJ falls so very short of meeting an), reasonable understanding 
of the ``public interest,'' given its failure to address 
many of Microsolf's illegal acts and its loophole-ridden provisions 
in the areas that it does purport to cover.
    Second, the PFJ fails to prohibit Microsoft's signature 
anticompetitive conduct: the binding of its middleware applications 
to its monopoly operating system, and its bundling of these products 
to further entrench its OS monopoly. The factual questions that 
surround these legal issues are quite complex, but here again, the 
Court has a powerful tool to employ: the extensive factual findings 
entered by the District Court. (1) These factual findings document 
Microsoft's purposeful commingling of middleware application code 
with the Windows OS to harm competition, as well as the contractual 
bundling of those applications with the OS, to force OEMs to 
distribute Microsoft's middleware, and to raise distribution hurdles 
for middleware rivals. Given the PFJ's failure to ban practices that 
the District Court and the Court of Appeals found to be at the 
center of Microsoft's illegal maintenance of its OS monopoly, the 
PFJ does not meet the ``public interest'' standard.
    Third, even with regard to those limited objectives that the PFJ 
does attempt to achieve--;i.e., the creation of ``OEM 
flexibility'' to promote desktop competition--;the proposed 
decree is so ridden with loopholes, exceptions and carve-outs as to 
render it ineffective. These deficiencies are highlighted when the 
PFJ is compared to previous remedial plans considered in this case, 
including Judge Jackson's interim conduct remedies and the mediation 
proposal offered by Judge Richard Posner (which Microsoft apparently 
agreed to even before it had been found liable for antitrust 
violations).
    Finally, we believe the Court will find the remedial proposal of 
the litigating state attorneys general (``Litigating 
States'' Remedial Proposal'' or 
``LSRP'')--;and the Court's consideration of that 
proposal--;to be useful in its review of the PFJ. Most 
immediately, the LSRP provides a benchmark as to what one group of 
antitrust enforcers believes to be compelled by the ``public 
interest'' in order to achieve the case's remedial objectives. 
Moreover, the LSRP provides a helpful point of comparison for some 
specific aspects of the PFJ--;i.e., a way to illustrate why 
particular PFJ provisions are ineffective, by comparison.
    These factual findings were affirmed on appeal. See Microsoft, 
253 F.3d at 51-;78. In addition, the Court recently held that 
the factual findings of the District Court ``in support of the 
liability findings'' should be considered 
``undisputed'' for the purpose of this proceeding. (See 
Transcript of January 7, 2002, at 31.) And third, the Court's 
consideration of the LSRP will adduce testimony and other evidence 
that should be weighed in determining whether the PFJ should be 
approved. Taken as a whole, a comparison of the PFJ with the 
Litigating States'' Remedial Proposal shows why the latter, and 
not the former, faithfully meets the remedial objectives set forth 
by the DC Circuit and serves the ``public interest'' as 
expressed in the nation's antitrust laws.
    I. THE COURT SHOULD USE THE REMEDIAL OBJECTIVES ESTABLISHED BY 
THE DC CIRCUIT IN THIS CASE AS THE STANDARD FOR ASSESSING WHETHER 
THE PFJ IS ``IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.''
    Passed by Congress in 1974, the Antitrust Procedures and 
Penalties Act, commonly known as the ``Tunney Act,'' 
provides that a proposed consent decree may be entered in an 
antitrust case only if the district court determines that such entry 
is ``in the public interest.'' See 15 U.S.C. *16(e). Given 
that the Court will receive numerous submissions on this point, we 
do not provide here a recitation of the Tunney Act's provisions, or 
an extensive analysis of the standard of review under the Act. 
Instead, we focus on just one, overriding ``procedural'' 
question: How should the Court measure ``the public 
interest'' in this unique case? For reasons we will explain 
below, we believe that the measure of the ``public 
interest'' to be applied in reviewing the PFJ can be found in 
the remedial objectives set forth by the DC Circuit in its 
consideration of this litigation. See Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 103.
    First, while the Tunney Act itself does not define ``public 
interest,'' the case law makes

[[Page 28214]]

clear that the Court must begin its analysis ``by defining the 
public interest'' in accordance with the basic purpose of the 
antitrust laws, which is to'' ``preserv[e] free and 
unfettered competition as the rule of trade.'' United States v. 
American Tel. & Tel. Co., 552 F. Supp. 131,149 (D.DC 1982) 
(quoting Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. United States, 356 U.S. 1 
(1958)). As a general rule, a court has discretion to reject a 
proposed consent decree that is ineffective because it fails to 
address or resolve the core competitive problems identified in the 
Department of Justice's complaint. United States v. Microsoft Corp., 
56 F.3d 1448, 1457-;62 (DC Cir. 1995). As this Court stated in 
United States v. Thomson Corp., 949 F. Supp. 907, 913 (D.DC 1996), 
the court has a responsibility ``to compare the complaint filed 
by the government with the proposed consent decree and determine 
whether the remedies negotiated between the parties and proposed by 
the Justice Department clearly and effectively address the 
anticompetitive harms initially identified.'' A court should 
``hesitate'' in the face of specific objections from 
directly affected third parties before concluding that a proposed 
final judgment is in the public interest. United States v. 
Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1462. And it ``should pay ``special 
attention'' to the clarity of the proposed consent decree and 
to the adequacy of its compliance mechanisms in order to assure that 
the decree is sufficiently precise and the compliance mechanisms 
sufficiently effective to enable the court to manage the 
implementation of the consent decree and resolve any subsequent 
disputes.'' Thomson Corp., 949 F. Supp. at 914 (citing United 
States v. Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461-;62).
    In the context of this proceeding, tremendous guidance as to the 
content of the public interest test can come from the earlier 
decision of the Court of Appeals in this case. In that decision, the 
DC Circuit wrote:

    [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.''

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)). These words, in our view, form the 
essence of the public interest test to be applied by the Court in 
this Tunney Act proceeding.

    First, on its face, this passage speaks of the object of a 
``remedies decree in an antitrust case,'' without 
differentiating between a decree that is achieved through 
negotiation and one achieved through litigation. Thus, the Court of 
Appeals'' ruling would appear to be directly controlling here, 
insofar as it states the measure of adequacy for any remedial 
decree, however achieved. There is no apparent reason why the 
``remedies decree'' negotiated by the Department of 
Justice with Microsoft should not have to meet the standard of 
adequacy generally set forth by the Court of Appeals in its 
decision.-'' This is particularly true given that the passage 
merely ``defin[es] the public interest in accordance with the 
antitrust laws.'' Accord American Tel. & Tel. Co., 552 F. 
Supp. at 149.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\This approach generally comports with other Tunney Act 
cases, which conclude that an antitrust remedy, including a consent 
decree, must'' ``effectively pry open to competition a 
market that has been closed by defendants'' illegal 
restraints.'' Id. at 150 (quoting International Salt Co. v. 
United States, 332 U.S. 392, 401 (1947); see also 2 P. Areeda & 
D. Turner, Antitrust Laws * 327 (1978)). A decree ``must 
``break up or render impotent the monopoly power found to be in 
violation of the Act,'' that is, it must leave the defendant 
without the ability to resume the actions which constituted the 
antitrust violation in the first place.''
    American Tel. & Tel., 552 F. Supp. at 150 (quoting United 
States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563,577 (1966)). ``It must 
also effectively foreclose the possibility that antitrust violations 
will occur or recur.'' Id. As the Supreme Court noted in 
International Salt Co., 332 U.S. at 400:
    [I]t is not necessary that all of the untraveled roads to 
[anticompetitive conduct] be left open and that only the worn one be 
closed. The usual ways to the prohibited goals may be blocked 
against the proven transgressor.
    Additionally, ``antitrust violations should be remedied 
``with as little injury as possible to the interest of the 
general public'' and to relevant private interests.'' /d. 
(quoting United States v. American Tobacco Co., 221 U.S. 106, I85 
(191 I)).
    While the Department of Justice urges the Court to adopt a much 
more lax review, even the government acknowledges that the Court's 
``review of the decree is informed not merely by the 
allegations contained in the Complaint, but also by the extensive 
factual and legal record resulting from the district and appellate 
court proceedings.'' (See Competitive Impact Statement 
(``CIS'') at 68 (November 15, 2001).)
    It was precisely the lack of a judicial finding of liability 
that caused Chief Justice Rehnquist to question the 
constitutionality of the Tunney Act. See Maryland v. United States, 
460 U.S. 1001, 1004 (1982) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting). This 
argument does not apply in the present case where there has been 
both a judicial finding of liability (at trial and affirmed on 
appeal), and there is a standard for review established by an 
appellate court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This is not to say that the Court should reject the PFJ if it 
finds only that it differs in some respects from the remedy that the 
Court would impose at the end of litigation. For while the public is 
entitled to a very robust remedy here, especially given the fact 
that this case has been litigated through trial and affirmed on 
appeal with judgments against Microsolf, a settlement clearly does 
not have to match precisely the outcome that would have been 
achieved in litigation to be deemed acceptable under the tunney 
Act's public interest test.
    Second, the four-part test established by the DC Circuit here 
would give the Court a clear and manageable standard on which to 
evaluate the proposed decree's adequacy) Use of the DC Circuit's 
formulation thus avoids one of the principal bases of controversy 
and difficulty in Tunney Act reviews -i.e., the lack of a judicially 
manageable standard for assessing the public interest and the 
consequent risk that judges will inappropriately use standardless 
judgment to review an exercise of prosecutorial discretion.\5\ Thus, 
unlike in other Tunney Act cases, where a court lacks an appropriate 
benchmark on which to measure the purported benefits of the 
settlement (and thus must be careful not to impose its judgment for 
that of the Justice Department), here, there is a clear benchmark 
for the Court to use: the standard set by the Court of Appeals with 
regard to a ``remedies decree.''
    Moreover, to the extent that insisting that the PFJ meet the 
standard set by the Court of Appeals would result in a more exacting 
review than the review imposed in other Tunney Act proceedings, that 
would be appropriate in this circumstance. For while the 
overwhelming majority of decrees reviewed under the Tunney Act occur 
in a pre-trial where the court lacks a judicial finding of 
illegality against which to measure the efficacy of the proposed 
settlement--;this proposed settlement was reached after an 
appellate affirmance of liability. Because the public has invested 
its resources and time, and taken the risk to win a judgment of 
liability and defend that judgment on appeal, it has a right to 
expect a more rigorous decree that meets a higher standard of 
review. Under these circumstances, the Court's review under the 
Tunney Act should not be deferential 1o the Justice Department; 
instead, the Court should apply the Court of Appeals'' four-
part test and determine if the PFJ meets that test.
    As explained in more detail below, the PFJ fails to meet the DC 
Circuit's four-part test, because contrary to the claims of the 
Department of Justice, it will neither ``provide a prompt, 
certain and effective remedy for consumers,'' nor 
``restore competitive conditions to the market.'' (See CIS 
at 2.) Specifically, it does not ``unfetter [the] market from 
anticompetitive conduct,'' because it does not even try to stop 
Microsoft's illegal binding and bundling practices--;or 
effectively limit Microsoft's ability to coerce OEM behavior to its 
liking. It does not ``terminate the illegal monopoly'' 
because it does not effectively promote rival middleware, and 
because its provisions are so laden with loopholes, exceptions and 
carve-outs. It does not ``deny to the defendant the fruits of 
its statutory violation,'' because it allows Microsoft to 
continue to leverage its OS monopoly to gain market share in other 
markets.\6\ And it does not ``ensure that there remain no 
practices likely to result in monopolization in the future,'' 
because it leaves Microsoft free to exploit the OS monopoly to gain 
don-finance in critical new markets. Failing to address the core 
anticompetitive wrongs that were found at trial and upheld on appeal 
against Microsoft, and failing to meet the four-part remedial test 
established by the DC Circuit, the PFJ is manifestly contrary to the 
public interest and should be rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\Indeed, Microsoft has actually seen its share of the 
browser market grow since being found liable for illegal monopoly 
maintenance. For example, Microsoft's share of the work browser 
market increased from 69.3 percent in April 2000 (when Judge Jackson 
issued his finding of liability) to 79.5 percent in November 2001. 
Over the same period, Microsoft's share of the home browser market 
increased from 75.7 percent to 81.8 percent. See Browser Trended 
Reach Report, Jupiter Media Metrix, January 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    II. AS MICROSOFT STARTS TO IMPLEMENT MOST OF THE DECREE'S 
PROVISIONS, THE COURT SHOULD CONSIDER HOW--;IF AT ALL--;OEMS 
ARE RESPONDING.

[[Page 28215]]

    As noted above, the question before the Court is whether the PFJ 
is ``in the public interest.'' 15 U.S.C. 
*sect;16(e). In making that determination, the statute 
indicates that the Court may want to consider, inter alia: (1) 
``the competitive impact'' of the PFJ, (2) whether it 
results in the ``termination of alleged violations,'' and 
(3) ``the impact of [the PFJ] upon the public generally and 
individuals alleging specific injury.'' Id.
    Fortunately, contrary to most other courts conducting Tunney Act 
reviews, this Court need not struggle with evaluating the 
``competitive impact'' of the PFJ in a factual vacuum 
because Microsoft has been, according to its own statements, 
implementing some provisions found in the PFJ since last 
Jul)'', and the bulk of its provisions since December. That 
means the Court need not base its ``public interest'' 
judgment on abstract legal and economic analyses only; instead, the 
Court's analysis can (at least in part) be shaped by a consideration 
of how Microsoft is beginning to implement parts of the PFJ, and how 
the PFJ's provisions are starting to work in practice.\7\ We believe 
that such a practical review will demonstrate that the portions of 
the PFJ in question show little prospect--;if any-that they will 
``unfetter the market,'', ``terminate the 
monopoly,'' or ``den),'' to Microsoft ``the 
fruits of its violation.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\If the Court finds that the submissions made to date 
are inadequate to assess this question, it can, of course, under the 
Tunney Act, take whatever testimony or evidence is needed to make 
such a determination. See 15 U.S.C. *sect;16(f); Section V.B, 
infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A. There Is No Indication That Microsoft's Implementation Of 
Major Aspects Of The PFJ Is Even Beginning To Promote Competition Or 
Helping To Loosen Microsoft's Control Over The Desktop. In the joint 
stipulation filed with the Court on November 6, 2001, Microsoft 
stated that it would ``begin complying with the [PFJ] as [if] 
it was in full force and effect starting on December 16, 2001 
.'' (Stipulation and Revised Proposed Final Judgment at 2 
(November 6,2001).) While provisions with specific timetables were 
exempted from this pledge--;resulting in an excessive delay for 
some of the PFJ's competitive protections--; many of the PFJ's 
remedial provisions were covered by it. Thus, with regard to many 
provisions of the PFJ, the proposed decree has been ``in 
effect'' since mid-December.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\Some examples of PFJ provisions Microsoft has 
ostensibly been complying with since December 16, 2001, include: 
Section III.A (anti-retaliation); Section III.B (uniform licensing); 
Section III.C (OEM licenses); Section III.G (anticompetitive 
agreements); and Section III.I (licensing of intellectual properly).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Microsoft's stipulation offers the Court a unique opportunity to 
learn, not just how the PFJ would serve the public interest once 
implemented, but instead, whether the PFJ provisions already in 
effect are showing signs that they are likely to serve the public 
interest. These provisions have now effectively been in place for 43 
days--;and by the time of a likely hearing or other proceeding 
to consider this question (presumably, in March or April), will have 
been in effect for three to four months.
    Microsoft may protest that a three- to four-month period in 
which parts of the PFJ will have been applied is inadequate to test 
those remedies. And that is doubtlessly true with regard to some 
measures of the PFJ's effectiveness, such as whether Microsoft's 
share of the OS market has shrunk from near absolute to anything 
less. But there are other measures of the PFJ's effectiveness that 
should be readily discernible even in this relatively short time.
    Among the questions we believe that the court could determine, 
by the time of a hearing in March or April, would be:
    Have the OEMs exercised (or even attempted to exercise)--;in 
any way beyond the prevailing industry practice prior to December 
16th--;the flexibilities to remove/replace icons, start menu 
entries, and default settings for Microsoft middleware products, 
that are purportedly provided in Section III.C.1 of the PFJ? If not, 
why not?
    Are non-Microsoft middleware products gaining .new distribution 
via the OEMs as a result of the provisions of Sections III.A. and 
III.C.2 of the PFJ, as implemented? If not, why not?
    Are non-Microsoft middleware products, to a greater extent than 
before implementation of the PFJ, attaining the benefits of an 
``automatic launch,'' pursuant to the provisions of 
Section III.C.3 of the PFJ? If not, why not?
    * Is any OEM offering a dual-boot computer, as authorized by 
Sections III.A.2 and III.C.4 of the PFJ? If not, why not?
    * Are there new IAP offerings being made at the conclusion of PC 
boot sequences, pursuant to Section III.C.5 of the PFJ? If not, why 
not?
    Has any ISV, IHV, LAP, ICP or OEM gained any additional Windows 
licensing rights that it did not have prior to the implementation of 
the PFJ, pursuant to Section III.I of the PFJ? If not, why not?
    Has Microsoft terminated any payments to OEMs that were 
anticompetitively advantaging Microsoft's products, and that are now 
forbidden, pursuant to Sections III.A and III.B of the PFJ?
    Based on our knowledge of industry developments, we believe that 
the answer to each of these questions is ``no,'' with 
perhaps some very rare and isolated exceptions.\9\ Thus, despite 
Microsoft's proclaimed implementation of large portions of the PFJ, 
there is scant evidence of OEMs even attempting, let alone 
succeeding, to offer consumers new choices with respect to 
middleware products. Even in a relatively short time frame of a few 
months, one would expect to find numerous OEMs reaching agreements 
to promote or carry multiple non- Microsoft products. But no such 
evidence exists. No doubt, that is why countless industry observers 
and analysts have concluded, after examining the PFJ, that 
``It]he changes we will see are minute. Microsoft can control 
its own destiny. It can do whatever it wants.''\10\ 
Presumably, it cannot be in ``the public interest'' to 
settle a case after years and years of litigation--;including a 
finding of liability for the government at trial, affirmed 
unanimously on appeal by the Court of Appeals (See Microsoft, 253 
F.3d at 46)--;for a remedial decree that effectuates only 
``minute'' changes in the strategy the defendant was using 
to illegally maintain its monopoly. And yet, that is precisely what 
appears to be happening, as the effectiveness--;or lack thereof- 
of parts of the PFJ are starting to be observed in application. 
While we certainly agree with the Department of Justice that it will 
only be ``over time'' that any remedy could ``help 
lower the applications barrier to entry,'' (see CIS at 29), 
that objective will never be achieved if the PFJ does not lead OEMs 
to even begin to ``offer rival middleware to consumers and.., 
feature that middleware in ways that increase the likelihood that 
consumers will choose to use it.'' (Id.) That is: the pro-
competitive probative of nothing more than the compelling need for a 
hearing so the Court can explore how, if at all, the PFJ journey of 
a thousand miles can never be completed if--;as it appears to be 
the case--;the PFJ does not create a market in which OEMs feel 
free to take that all-important first step. To the extent that much 
of the CIS suggests that the goal of the remedy is to create OEM 
flexibility for its own sake--;i.e., to make sure that OEMs have 
the right to choose non-Microsoft products, whether or not they 
exercise that right--;it misses the mark. The goal of this 
litigation is not to protect OEMs'' rights, but rather to 
protect consumers'' rights to enjoy a free and competitive 
market. In such a market, OEMs can be important surrogates for 
consumers, but only if they actually offer competitive choices. 
Likewise, to the extent that the other goal of the remedial 
proceeding is to reduce the applications barrier to entry, that 
objective is only achieved to the extent that the OEMs actually 
distribute and promote non- Microsoft middleware--;it is not 
advanced by the unexercised presence of theoretical OEM choice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\Although Compaq and RealNetworks reached an agreement 
in December 2001, whereby Compaq would place Real's player on its 
personal computers, see RealNetworks Sets Deal With Compaq, The Los 
Angeles Times, December 13, 2001, it is unclear, among other things, 
what the terms of the agreement are, what impact it will have on 
competition and consumer choice, and whether the agreement was 
motivated, in whole or in part, by the purported 
``flexibility'' of the proposed settlement. While the 
Court should certainly give the Compaq agreement some consideration 
in its public interest review, the agreement's mere existence is 
already affecting the marketplace.
    \10\See Jeff O'Heir, Analysis: MS & DOJ Reach 
Agreement, P.C. Dealer, November 12, 2001 (quoting Roland Pinto); 
see also Randy Barrett, MS-DOJ Pact Disappoints, Interactive Week, 
Nov. 8, 2001 (quoting Roger Frizzell, Compaq Spokesman, 
``Basically, we don't feel there's a big difference between 
where we're standing today and where we were last week.''); Id. 
(quoting Mike Griffin, ``We don't anticipate any changes at 
all.''{time} .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, the determination of whether the PFJ will be effective in 
promoting its purported ends--;i.e., fostering OEMs in making 
those choices and creating opportunities for competition--;need 
not be left for some subsequent proceeding or for antitrust scholars 
in future years. It can be ascertained now from the submissions that 
the Court is receiving, or, if those submissions are inadequate, it 
could be resolved by the Court

[[Page 28216]]

in a proceeding where evidence is taken and testimony is heard. See 
Section V.B, infra. The manner in which Microsoft is already 
implementing portions of the PFJ is among the most probative 
considerations the Court can weigh in determining how--;it at 
all--;the proposed settlement will promote competition in the 
years to come.
    B. The Provisions Of The PFJ Implemented By Microsoft Since July 
11th Are Not Showing Signs That They Will Work To Restore 
Competition In The Browser Market.
    In addition to the general applicability of the PFJ's 
provisions, several of its provisions have been in place--;as 
they relate to the Internet browser--;since Microsoft took steps 
to implement them after the Court of Appeals'' decision last 
June. As with the more general PFJ provisions discussed above, the 
Court should examine whether these browser- specific remedial 
provisions--;which will have been in place for eight months by 
mid-March--;have been effective to date. Again, we believe that 
the evidence to date shows that the provisions are showing no sign 
of effectuating change in the market; thus, the PFJ--;which 
(with regard to browsers) does little more than codify these 
unilateral Microsoft actions--; does not meet the ``public 
interest'' standard.
    On July 11, 2001, in response to the decision of the Court of 
Appeals, Microsoft announced a program of ``greater OEM 
flexibility for Windows.'' See Press Release, Microsoft 
Corporation, Microsoft Announces Greater OEM Flexibility For 
Windows, July 11, 2001. Specifically, Microsoft announced that it 
would amend its OEM license agreements to provide that:
    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.
    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 Me .... 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 ....
    d. These provisions mirror the browser-related provisions found 
in Sections III.C.1 and III.H.1 of the PFJ. Indeed, they comprise 
almost the entirety of all browser-related remedial provisions found 
in the PFJ.
    Thus, the question of whether the PFJ fulfills the Department of 
Justice's promise of an effective remedy for ``restor[ing] the 
competitive threat that middleware products posed prior to 
Microsoft's unlawful undertakings,'' can easily be 
assessed--;at least with regard to the browser threat, which was 
such an extensive part of the Court of Appeals'' 
decision--;by seeing how effective these unilateral Microsoft 
actions, taken in July of 2001, have been to date. And unlike the 
provisions discussed above, which were put in place only in 
December, it cannot be argued that these browser-related provisions 
have not yet been tested in the marketplace; rather, the{time} , 
were in place for the launch of Windows XP, which Bill Gates 
recently dubbed the ``best-selling release of Windows ever, and 
one that is creating great opportunities for PC manufacturers and 
our other partners in the industry.''\11\ In the 
simplest terms, as we note above, these ``remedies'' will 
have been in place for eight months by mid-March of 2002.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\See GM Plans White-Collar Cuts, Financial Briefs, The 
Washington Post, January 9, 2002, at E02.
    \12\Given that the length of the PFJ is only 60 months, 
see Section V.A of the PFJ, an assessment of the effectiveness of a 
provision after eight months would be highly significant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We believe that the initial evidence shows that these provisions 
are completely ineffective. We are unaware of a single OEM that has 
used the ``flexibility'' provided to it by Microsoft to 
remove Internet Explorer from the Start menu, or from any of its 
multiple promotional placements on the PC desktop. Nor are we aware 
of any OEM that has elected to use any competitor to Internet 
Explorer as a default browser, or to promote alternative browsers to 
Internet Explorer in any way.
    Moreover, there is no indication--;more than six months 
after Microsoft's July 11th announcement and four months after the 
first shipments of Windows XP--;that Internet Explorer's 
commanding market share in the browser market has fallen in any 
measurable way. If the provisions of the PFJ are strong enough to 
``restore'' competition to the marketplace, which DOJ 
claims they are (see CIS at 3 (``[t]he requirements and 
prohibitions [of the PFJ] will ... restore the competitive threat 
that middleware products posed prior to Microsoft's unlawful 
undertakings'')), one would expect to see that the market 
shares of Microsoft's browser competitors have increased during this 
time frame. There is simply no evidence of that. Not only is there a 
dearth of evidence suggesting that the PFJ's provisions are going to 
restore competition to the level enjoyed by Microsoft's rivals prior 
to its illegal conduct, but there is no evidence to suggest they are 
affecting the market at all.
    A remedial provision that has no market impact cannot be said to 
be in the ``public interest,'' especially in a case like 
this where the damage from Microsoft's illegal campaign to eliminate 
rival middleware has already been done. In other words, because 
Microsoft has illegally driven down the market shares of its rival 
middleware developers, restoring competition to the marketplace 
requires much more than simply eliminating the illegal practices: 
only if the status quo ante is restored would OEM freedom of choice 
be meaningful. And yet, the evidence suggests that the PFJ 
provisions that relate to the browser will have no market impact, 
given the practical experience with highly similar proposals put in 
place by Microsoft last July. This is important evidence for the 
Court to consider when reviewing the PFJ.
    III. THE PFJ IS NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST BECAUSE IT DOES NOT 
EVEN ATTEMPT TO HALT MICROSOFT'S MOST INSIDIOUS PRACTICE: ITS 
ILLEGAL BINDING AND BUNDLING OF MIDDLEWARE APPLICATIONS WITH THE 
WINDOWS OS.
    In this submission--;and doubtlessly in the many others the 
Court will receive - we identify a number of specific deficiencies 
in the PFJ. See Section IV, infra and Attachment B. But one omission 
stands out above all others: the failure of the PFJ to limit 
Microsoft's ongoing and insidious efforts to maintain its monopoly- 
and leverage and entrench that monopoly--;by tying its 
middleware applications to the Windows OS. This conduct--;found 
illegal by the District Court and upheld as illegal by the Court of 
Appeals (see Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 67)--;is left unchecked by 
the PFJ. By contrast, a remedy to address this practice appeared in 
the interim conduct remedies offered by the District Court,\13\ as 
well as the remedial proposal designed by Judge Richard Posner 
(``Posner Proposal'').\14\ The practice is also addressed 
extensively in the litigating states'' proposed remedy. By 
failing to remedy one of Microsoft's ``signature'' 
anticompetitive acts, the PFJ--;even before reaching its many 
other defects--;falls far short of the four-part remedial 
standard set by the Court of Appeals, and by the same token, fails 
to meet the public interest test established by the Tunney Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\We use the interim conduct remedies as a point of 
reference--;notwithstanding the fact that they were vacated on 
appeal--;because the Department of Justice stated publicly that 
it would ``seek an order that is modeled after the interim 
conduct-related provisions of the Final Judgment previously ordered 
in the case.'' See Press Release, Department of Justice, 
Justice Department Informs Microsoft of Plans for Further 
Proceedings in the District Court, September 6, 2001; see also, John 
Hendren, New Judge Puts Heat on Feds, Microsoft: Quick Settlement 
Urged to Aid Ailing Economy, The Seattle Times, September 29, 2001 
(``Government lawyers have said they intended to model their 
proposed remedy on an interim conduct order by the previous district 
judge who oversaw the case, Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson.'').
    \14\A draft of the mediation proposal, Mediator's Draft 
#18 (April 5, 2000) (referred to herein as the ``Posner 
Proposal''), is available at www.ccianet.org/legal/ms/
draft18.php3. At the time, several news reports indicated that 
Microsoft had agreed to the provisions in the Posner Proposal. See, 
e.g.. Joe Wilcox, Hard to Gauge Extent. Effectiveness of Microsoft 
Concessions, CNET News.com, March 30, 2000 (the ``software 
giant has tentatively agreed to sweeping restrictions on how it does 
business with its partners'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In explaining why it did not seek to limit Microsoft's tying of 
middleware applications to Windows in the PFJ, the Justice 
Department has suggested that there was no basis for such a remedy 
because of the Court of Appeals'' reversal of the District 
Court's finding of liability under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and 
the appellate court's direction that the remedy here should 
``focus[] on the specific practices that the court had ruled 
unlawful.''\15\ This analysis fundamentally misapprehends the

[[Page 28217]]

implications of the Court of Appeals'' ruling: contrary to 
DOJ's view, the Court of Appeals did not suggest that an anti- tying 
remedy was inappropriate or unnecessary here; indeed, much of the 
Court of Appeals'' decision is a strong declaration of how 
Microsoft's various forms of tying violated Section 2 of the Sherman 
Act. See, e.g., Microsoft 253 F.3d at 65-;67. A remedy that 
truly ``focused on the specific practices that the court had 
ruled unlawful'' would have to address the tying practices that 
the Court of Appeals ``ruled unlawful''; the PFJ does not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\See Testimony of Assistant Attorney General Charles 
James, Senate Judiciary Committee (December 12, 2001); see also 
Q&A.'' Charles James Defends The Deal, Business Week, Nov. 
19, 2001 (``People who suggest that [the decree should have 
ordered Microsoft to sell a stripped-down version of Windows] are 
not recognizing that the tying claim was eliminated from the case by 
the appeals court.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because Microsoft's various forms of middleware applications 
tying are critical tactics that it uses to maintain its illegal 
monopoly, they must be ended if the remedy is to ``terminate 
the monopoly.''\16\ (See Microsoft's Tying Strategies To 
Maintain Monopoly Power In Its Operating System (``Mathewson 
& Winter Report''), attached hereto as Attachment A.) 
Furthermore, the opportunity to gain market share as a result of 
such tying is one of the principal fruits of Microsoft's illegality, 
and should therefore be denied to it.\17\ As a result, the failure 
of the PFJ to address Microsoft's tying is a fundamental 
flax,,'' that alone merits rejection of the proposed decree.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\See Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 46; 15 U.S.C. * 16(e) (in 
a Tunney Act proceeding, the court is authorized to consider whether 
the proposed settlement results in the ``termination of alleged 
violations''); see also Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. at 577 (a 
decree must ``break up or render impotent the monopoly power 
found to be in violation of the Act'').
    \17\See Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 51, 103.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Importantly, we note that the legal and economic arguments 
presented below are reinforced by the empirical observations set 
forth in Section II, supra. That is, the legal and economic analysis 
below which suggests that a remedy without a ban on tying will be 
ineffective in theory, is supported by the fact that such a 
remedy--;imposed in part since Jul{time} '', and more 
substantially since December--;is proving to be ineffective in 
practice.
    A. The Court Of Appeals Explicitly Held That Code 
Commingling--;A Form Of Tying Unaddressed By The 
PFJ--;Violates Section 2 Of The Sherman Act.
    In affirming the District Court's findings of fact concerning 
Microsoft's practice of commingling the code for its own middleware 
products with the code for the Windows OS, the Court of Appeals made 
clear that such commingling was an unlawful act in violation of 
Section 2 of the Sherman Act. See Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 
65-;67. Specifically, the Court of Appeals concluded that 
Microsoft's ``commingling has an anticompetitive effect * . . 
[and] constitute[s] exclusionary conduct, in violation of $ 
2.'' Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 66- 67 (emphasis added)*\18\ 
According to the appeals court, Microsoft's ``commingling 
deters OEMs from pre-installing rival browsers, 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.'' Id. at 66. Moreover, the Court 
of Appeals affirmed the District Court's finding that such 
commingling was done, deliberately and intentionally, to advance 
Microsoft's anticompetitive aims. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\In its Conclusions of Law, the District Court broadly 
condemned Microsoft's decision to bind ``Internet Explorer to 
Windows with.., technological shackles.'' United States v. 
Microsoft, 87 F. Supp. 2d at 30, 39 (D.DC 2000) (``Conclusions 
of Law''). Specifically, the District Court denounced 
Microsoft's decision to bind Internet Explorer to the Windows OS 
``by placing code specific to Web browsing in the same files as 
code that provided operating system functions.'' United States 
v. Microsoft, 84 F. Supp. 2d at 50, 161 (D.DC 1999) 
(``Findings of Fact'')*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notwithstanding these clear declarations by the Court of 
Appeals, this practice is not prohibited by the PFJ. Such a 
prohibition was omitted despite the finding that it is 
illegal--;and despite the Justice Department's recognition that 
the first remedial objective in a decree should be to ``end the 
unlawful conduct.'' (See CIS at 24.) Thus, Microsoft remains 
free to bind its middleware applications, including the browser, to 
its Windows OS\19\--;making it impossible for an OEM, or 
a consumer, to remove that application from a PC without doing 
damage to that PC's operating system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\The danger of according Microsoft this power is 
exacerbated--;and reinforced--;by the PFJ's definition of 
the Windows Operating System Product (``Definition U''), 
which states that the software code that comprises the 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Microsoft's suggestion that competition is adequately served by 
allowing OEMs to pre-install rival middleware and to remove end-user 
access to Microsoft middleware--;instead of banning 
commingling--;is incorrect for several reasons. First, as the 
District Court found and the Court of Appeals affirmed, commingling 
of code strongly deters - and may even prevent--;OEMs and 
consumers from using middleware products offered by Microsoft's 
competitors (because the Microsoft product is inextricably 
intertwined with the OS and is thus both easier to use and harder to 
remove).\20\ Why would an OEM include a competing middleware product 
that will cost money to install and use up valuable space on the 
hard drive when Microsoft's product is already there and has been so 
tightly knit with the OS that it cannot be removed without doing 
damage to the OS? As the Court of Appeals noted (citing the District 
Court's holding), Microsoft's commingling has both prevented OEMs 
from pre-installing other browsers and deterred consumers from using 
them. In particular, having the IE software code as an irremovable 
part of Windows meant that pre-installing a second browser would 
``increase an OEM's product testing costs,'' because an 
OEM must test and train its support staff to answer calls related to 
every software product preinstalled on the machine; moreover, pre-
installing a browser in addition to IE would to many OEMs be 
``a questionable use of the scarce and valuable space on a PC's 
hard drive.''

    \20\20 See, e.g.. Findings of Fact, 84 F. Supp. 2d at 
49-;50,  159 (``Microsoft knows that the inability 
to remove Internet Explorer made OEMs less disposed to pre-install 
Navigator .... Pre-installing more than one product in a given 
category.., can significantly increase an OEM's support costs, for 
the redundancy can lead to confusion among novice users. In 
addition, pre-installing a second product in a given software 
category can increase an OEM's product testing costs. Finally, many 
OEMs see pre-installing a second application in a given software 
category as a questionable use of the scarce and valuable space on a 
PC's hard drive.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 64 (citations omitted).

    As long as commingling is permitted, OEMs and other third party 
licensees will have no incentive to take advantage of the limited 
freedom provided by the PFJ and will continue to use Microsoft's 
middleware products at the expense of its competitors. As a result, 
commingling reduces Microsoft's distribution costs for its 
middleware applications to zero. It also raises the distribution 
costs of rival middleware application makers--;who not only must 
pay for something that Microsoft gets for free (i.e., distribution 
via OEMs), but must also pay an added bounty to persuade OEMs to 
install their applications as the second such application on a PC. 
This, of course, assumes that such an added payment strategy for 
such middleware would even be plausible (which is highly doubtful, 
except in rare cases) and would not be defeated by Microsoft, a 
rival with roughly S39 billion in cash available to deter the 
prospect of being outbid by other middleware developers for PC 
access.
    The other way in which code commingling illegally enhances the 
position of Microsoft middleware is by encouraging applications 
programmers to write their programs to Microsoft's products. 
(Mathewson & Winter Report at  14-;16.) Third 
party developers decide how to write their applications based upon 
what APIs they believe will be available on the broadest number of 
computers and will enable their products to function most smoothly. 
See Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 55. Because the PFJ will allow Microsoft 
to continue commingling its middleware and OS code, it essentially 
guarantees that Microsoft's application programming interfaces 
(``APIs'') are universally available in all Windows 
environments (in other words, on virtually all PCs)--;and that 
software developers who write their applications to Microsoft's APIs 
can write directly to the OS. This is true regardless of whether or 
not end-user access to the middleware product is visible. As a 
result, third party software developers (whose business interests 
are to develop successful applications, not to challenge Microsoft's 
monopoly) will almost always write their programs to Microsoft 
middleware.\21\ Thus, Microsoft's commingling practices only 
exacerbate the ``applications barrier to entry'' that 
already encourages developers to create software that runs on 
Microsoft's dominant OS and interoperates with Microsoft's 
middleware

[[Page 28218]]

products. (See Mathewson & Winter Report at  16.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\For example, a developer that creates music search 
software is far more likely to develop a program that runs on 
Windows Media Player than RealPlayer, knowing that the new program 
would interoperate more readily with the OS if it runs on 
Microsoft's program and would have fewer glitches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, in the end, as both the Court of Appeals and the District 
Court concluded here, commingling itself deters OEMs from installing 
rival middleware. See Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 66; Findings of Fact, 
84 F. Supp. 2d at 49-;50,  159. No doubt this is why 
every other remedial plan contemplated in this litigation--;from 
the Posner Proposal,\22\ to Judge Jackson's interim remedial 
order,\23\ to the proposal set forth by the Litigating 
States\24\--;has prominently included a ban on code 
commingling (or, at the very least, a requirement that Microsoft 
make available a non-commingled version of Windows). Yet, despite 
that, despite the Court of Appeals'' holding, and despite the 
District Court's factual findings, the PFJ fails to prohibit or 
limit this practice in any manner whatsoever.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\See Posner Proposal * 3(9) (Microsoft is enjoined 
from ``tying or combining any middleware product to or with a 
Windows operating system unless Microsoft offers a version of that 
operating system without such middleware product at a reduced price 
that reasonably reflects the relative costs of the operating system 
and the excluded middleware.'').
    \23\See United States v. Microsoft, 97 F. Supp. 2d 59, 68 
(D.DC 2000) (``Microsoft shall not, in any Operating System 
Product distributed six or more months after the effective date of 
this Final Judgment, Bind any Middleware Product to a Windows 
Operating System .... ``).
    \24\The Litigating States'' Remedial Proposal would 
prevent Microsoft from unlawfully reducing the competitive threat 
from non-Microsoft middleware products by commingling middleware and 
operating system code. The Litigating States'' Remedial 
Proposal would prohibit the practice of commingling altogether or, 
alternatively, require Microsoft to offer, upon written request from 
OEMs or other third part).'' licensees, its operating system on 
an unbundled basis:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Microsoft has already demonstrated its willingness and ability 
to fend off threats from competing middleware products by illegally 
commingling code with the Windows OS.\25\ As currently drafted, the 
PFJ gives the company a green light to continue this anticompetitive 
and illegal practice. The public interest requires that Microsoft's 
practice of tying its middleware and operating system, via code 
commingling, be prohibited.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\Note that Microsoft's options for exploiting 
technological means to advance its tying ends are not limited to 
code commingling. Code commingling, of course, is an extreme version 
of such tying, in that it prevents OEMs and consumers from removing 
applications without threatening the integrity of the OS. Other 
examples discussed during trial include deliberately harming the 
interoperability of Netscape's Navigator browser, see, e.g., 
Findings of Fact, 84 F. Supp. 2d at 31,  84 (finding that 
Microsoft executives explicitly offered preferred access to APIs to 
Netscape as an inducement to them to not expose their own APIs); id. 
at 33,  90-;91 (finding that when Netscape refused 
this offer, Microsoft withheld necessary Windows APIs from I 
Netscape, delaying Netscape's Windows 95 browser launch until after 
the holiday selling season); id. at 50,  160 (``We 
will bind the shell to the Internet Explorer, so that running any 
other browser is a jolting experience.''); and working 
aggressively to degrade the performance and desirability of Sun's 
Java software, id. at 109-;110,  404-;406 
(finding that Microsoft harmed development of Java class libraries 
and cross-platform Java interfaces).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Microsoft shall not, in any Windows Operating System Product 
(excluding Windows 98 and Windows 98 SE) it distributes beginning 
six months after the date of entry of this Final Judgment, Bind any 
Microsoft Middleware Products to the Windows Operating System unless 
Microsoft also has available to license, upon the written request of 
each Covered OEM licensee or Third-Party Licensee that so specifies, 
and Microsoft supports both directly and indirectly, an otherwise 
identical version of the Windows Operating System Product that omits 
any combination of Microsoft Middleware Products as indicated by the 
licensee.
    (See Proposed Text  1 (hereinafter 
``States'' Proposed Text''), attached as Exhibit A to 
Litigating States'' Remedial Proposal (December 7, 2001).)
    B. Microsoft Uses A Variety Of Other Tying Practices To Maintain 
Its Operating System Monopoly; If The Monopoly Is To Be 
``Terminated,'' Such Contractual Tying Must Be Prohibited.
    The Justice Department's insistence that the remedy in this case 
should not include a general tying prohibition because the 
government abandoned its Section 1 tying claim is logically flawed. 
Contrary to DOJ's assertions, as discussed at length above, the 
ultimate remedy in this case must ``terminate'' 
Microsoft's illegally maintained monopoly- and that can only happen 
if the remedy addresses those behaviors that anticompetitively 
maintain the Windows monopoly.
    The bundling, or contractual tying, of Microsoft's middleware 
products to its Windows OS is clearly such an anticompetitive 
behavior: it is the signature tactic used by Microsoft to maintain 
its monopoly and fend off competitive challenges, and it has been 
expressly found to be illegal by the Court of Appeals. See, e.g., 
Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 61 (the restriction in Microsoft's licensing 
agreements that prevents OEMs from removing or uninstalling IE 
``protects Microsoft's monopoly from the competition that 
middleware might otherwise present. Therefore, we conclude that the 
license restriction at issue is anticompetitive.'') (emphasis 
added); see also Mathewson & Winter Report at 
 13-;33. Put another way, various tying 
practices were found by the Court of Appeals to illegally reinforce 
Microsoft's OS monopoly and thus must be banned in order to realize 
the remedial mandate of the Court of Appeals and the public interest 
objectives of the Tunney Act.
    The anticompetitive nature of tying is apparent on its face: it 
reduces competition and consumer choice, making it less likely for 
Windows consumers to acquire and use non-Microsoft middleware 
products for reasons unrelated to the merits of those products. See 
Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 60 (upholding District Court's conclusion 
that contractually restricting OEMs'' ability to remove IE 
``prevented many OEMs from distributing browsers other than 
IE''); see also Mathewson & Winter Report at * 23. 
Microsoft only makes Windows available for license to OEMs in a 
bundle that includes a number of its middleware applications (e.g., 
Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, Windows Messenger, MSN). 
Microsoft also contractually prohibits OEMs from removing its 
applications from the bundled offering.
    As explained in the attached economic report from Professors 
Frank Mathewson and Ralph Winter, such tying is anticompetitive and 
should fall under the purview of these remedy proceedings for four 
principal reasons: (1) it reinforces Microsoft's monopoly by 
increasing the applications barrier to entry against OS competitors; 
(2) it reinforces Microsoft's monopoly by deterring direct 
challenges to the OS itself as the platform of choice for software 
developers; (3) it weakens the greatest current competitor to 
Windows--;prior versions of Windows; and (4) Microsoft's more 
recent practice of tying the Windows Media Player to the OS creates 
a new variant of the applications barrier to entry problem for 
potential OS rivals: a content-encoding barrier to entry. (See 
Mathewson & Winter Report, passim.)
    First, tying anticompetitively strengthens Microsoft's OS 
monopoly by reinforcing the applications barrier to entry against OS 
competitors. (Id. at  ;14-;16.) The dominance 
of the Windows standard in a wide range of applications, including a 
few particularly important applications, hampers entry into the 
operating system market because an entrant has to offer both a new 
operating system and a full set of applications, or hope that 
applications will quickly develop once the new operating system 
becomes available. See Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 55 (applications 
barrier to entry stems, in part, from the fact that ``most 
developers prefer to write for operating systems that already have a 
substantial consumer base''). This is referred to as the 
applications barrier to entry, and the District Court found that it 
served to protect Microsoft against an OS challenge from IBM in the 
1990s. Id. (upholding District Court's finding that ``IBM's 
difficulty in attracting a larger number of software developers to 
write for its platform seriously impeded OS/2's success'').\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\See Findings of Fact, 84 F. Supp. 2d at 19-;22, 
 36-;44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By engaging in tying to gain dominance in key applications 
markets, Microsoft can turn the already-daunting applications 
barrier to entry into a virtually insurmountable shield. As the 
Court of Appeals explained, ``Microsoft's efforts to gain 
market share in one market (browsers) served to meet the threat to 
Microsoft's monopoly in another market (operating systems) by 
keeping rival browsers from gaining the critical mass of users 
necessary to attract developer attention away from Windows as the 
platform for software development.'' Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 60. 
If Microsoft controls the key applications, it can unilaterally 
decide not to make those applications available for even the most-
promising rival operating systems. Microsoft's tying thus 
anticompetitively advantages its position in the middleware 
applications market and sustains its OS monopoly as well. (See 
Mathewson & Winter

[[Page 28219]]

Report at  66.)\27\ Consider, for example, Microsoft 
Office. At one point, companies such as Corel and Lotus provided the 
most popular versions of these applications. At that time, to 
compete with Microsoft's Windows, rival operating systems needed to 
persuade Corel and Lotus to port their applications to those rival 
systems. Now that Microsoft has successfully leveraged Windows to 
obtain dominance in the Office suite of applications, however, rival 
OS providers would have to persuade Microsoft to port Office to 
rival systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\See Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 59-;60 (citing 
District Court's finding that ``Microsoft's imposition of 
[licensing] provisions (like man','' of Microsoft's other 
actions at issue in this case) serves to reduce usage share of 
Netscape's browser and, hence, protect Microsoft's operating system 
monopoly'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If Microsoft can gain dominance with key middleware applications 
such as Office, MSN Messenger, and Windows Media Player, it can 
ensure that rival operating systems cannot meet customers'' 
demands for the most popular applications. That is, when Microsoft's 
browser, Microsoft's media player, and Microsoft's instant messenger 
are dominant in those applications markets, Microsoft may choose not 
to write its applications to interoperate with a potential rival 
OS--;making it much more difficult for nascent operating systems 
to compete with Windows.\28\ Thus, Microsoft's tying, over time, 
takes today's very high ``applications barrier to entry,'' 
and raises it immeasurably higher. (See Mathewson & Winter 
Report at  66.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\This fear is not theoretical: the District Court 
found that Microsoft made just such a threat to Apple, with regard 
to Microsoft Office. See Findings of Fact, 84 F. Supp. 2d at 
95-;97,  345-;356.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, bring reinforces Microsoft's monopoly by deterring 
direct challenges to the OS itself as the platform of choice for 
software developers. (Id. at  17-;19.) A clear 
incentive for Microsoft to tie its Internet Explorer browser with 
Windows was the threat that Netscape--;on its own, or combined 
with Java software--;would eliminate Microsoft's network 
advantages in the operating system by providing middleware that 
would offer a competing platform for software developers. As the 
District Court and Court of Appeals found, Netscape and Java were 
particular threats to Microsoft's dominance in operating systems 
because they potentially represented a platform/programming 
environment in which software applications could be developed 
without regard to the underlying operating system. See Microsoft, 
253 F.3d at 74. With middleware, the success of a new operating 
system no longer depended on the development of new code by every 
application developer. (See Mathewson & Winter Report at 
 19.)
    If rivals develop valuable, widely distributed middleware, 
software vendors could very well begin to write most of their 
applications directly to that middleware, and the applications 
barrier to entry would disappear. By using anticompetitive tying to 
dominate each promising field of middleware, Microsoft ensures that 
software developers face a unified field of proprietary Microsoft OS 
and middleware interfaces. (Id.) Thus, Microsoft's tying practices 
serve, in this way too, to reinforce and entrench its illegal OS 
monopoly.
    Third, tying weakens the greatest current competitor to 
Windows--;prior versions of Windows. (Id. at 
 27-;30.)\29\ Existing versions of Windows 
provide competitive constraints on Microsoft for a simple reason: if 
new versions of Windows are insufficiently innovative or too 
expensive, consumers will choose to retain their older versions of 
the product. Through tying, however, Microsoft weakens this source 
of competition in two ways. First, new versions of Windows are 
marketed as much for new applications as for new OS features. 
Windows XP, for example, is being marketed in part for its inclusion 
of new applications, such as Windows Media Player 8.0--;not just 
based on innovations and improvements to the OS itself. Second, 
middleware applications such as Internet Explorer, Windows Media 
Player (with the attendant Microsoft Digital Rights Management), and 
MSN allow Microsoft to track consumer usage. Microsoft's binding of 
these products to Windows ``thus creates a total product that 
lends itself to usage and leasing fees. By gradually reducing the 
price of Windows and increasing the usage fees on its tied 
applications, Microsoft can shift to a usage or leasing revenue 
model, rather than a revenue model based on sales. This eliminates 
the competitive threat front previous versions of 
Windows\30\* (in addition to providing Microsoft with the 
fruits of its illegal behavior, as discussed in Section III.C, 
below). (See id. at  28.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\The District Court's Findings of Fact, 84 F. Supp. 2d 
at 25,  57, maintain that the Windows leasing agreement 
prohibits the user from transferring the OS to another machine so 
that ``there is no legal secondary market in Microsoft 
operating systems.'' The Findings of Fact then note at 
 58 that there is a thriving illegal market. To limit 
this, Microsoft charges a higher price for Windows to OEMs that do 
not limit the number of PCs the), sell without the OS pre-installed. 
One might argue that the durable-goods monopoly problem is 
eliminated by Microsoft's refusal to allow OEMs to install (without 
penalty) old versions of Windows. As explained in the attached 
Mathewson & Winter Report, this is incorrect for two reasons: 
``(i) increases in the price of the new version of Windows will 
reduce overall demand for new PCs, as users invoke the option to 
keep existing PCs with the old version, and (ii) there is a retail 
market for new versions of Windows software for installation on 
existing PCs. Both (i) and (ii) provide channels through which the 
existing stock of Windows software provides some competition for a 
new version of Windows (i.e., it increases the elasticity of demand 
for the new version). If the price of a new version is increased, 
the demand for the new version is reduced because fewer consumers 
will purchase new PCs as the price increase for Windows raises the 
price of the overall package of the PC and the (mandated by 
Microsoft) new version of Windows, and because some consumers who 
would have purchased Windows to install on their old PCs will now 
refuse to do so.'' (See Mathewson & Winter Report at 12 n. 
10.)
    \30\See Jeremy Bulow, ``Durable-Goods 
Monopolists,'' Journal of Political Economy 90(2): 
314-;332 (explaining how leasing, rather than selling, solves 
the monopolists'' ``problem'' of competition from 
previously existing stocks of goods); id. at 330 (a durable-goods 
monopolist may be able to achieve the leasing result through 
extending its monopoly to service contracts).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fourth, in addition to these three general ways in which 
Microsoft's contractual tying reinforces the OS monopoly, 
Microsoft's more recent tying of its media player to the OS creates 
yet another special and highly significant reinforcement of the 
Windows monopoly. (See Mathewson & Winter Report at 
 36.) This problem results from the close connection 
between the media player and Microsoft's proprietary media encoding 
format, Windows Media Audio (``WMA''). Because Microsoft 
does not license the WMA format to some rival media 
players--;including, most notably, the only other media player 
with substantial market presence, Real Player--;Microsoft's 
media player is the only major player that can play content encoded 
in Microsoft's format. As Microsoft's format becomes more and more 
widespread--;it is currently growing in use at a rate ten times 
that of its rivals - more and more content will become viewable and 
playable only via Microsoft's media player, which is only 
distributed via Microsoft's OS.
    In such a market, then, a rival OS would have to overcome not 
only today's applications barrier to entry to compete with 
Windows--;that is to say, it would have to persuade application 
writers to write their applications to interoperate with their 
OS--;it would also have to overcome a new, even more daunting 
``content encoding barrier to entry'' - i.e., it would 
have to persuade owners of thousands (or perhaps even millions) of 
pieces of multi-media content to re-encode their content in formats 
that the media player used by'' the rival OS could read. (Id. 
at  37-;38.) This barrier to entry applies not 
only to rival PC operating systems, but also to evolving operating 
systems for handheld and mobile communications devices, since 
consumers v, ill want to access the best streaming content using 
those devices. Thus, the currently daunting applications barrier to 
entry is raised many times higher by virtue of the tying of the 
Windows Media Player (and its related proprietary formats) to the 
Windows OS.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\This same theory applies to Microsoft's identity-
authentication application, known as ``Passport.'' If 
Microsoft can leverage its OS monopoly to make Passport ubiquitous, 
it can persuade e-commerce sites to adopt Passport as the sole 
identity-authentication standard. If that were to happen, a nascent 
OS competitor would not only have to develop its own identity-
authentication application; it would also have to persuade thousands 
of e-commerce sites to adopt that application for use on their web 
sites. Thus, Microsoft's tying of Passport to the Windows OS could 
potentially create yet another barrier to entry in the OS market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All four of these anticompetitive effects are mutually 
reinforcing, because of the network effects operating between the 
applications sector and the operating system market. (Id. at 
 31-;33.) Achieving dominance in applications 
(through tying) strengthens the dominance of the OS, because buyers 
in the OS market are more assured of available applications. The 
greater dominance in the OS market in turn feeds back into greater 
dominance in applications, since the tying strategies take the form 
of imposing an

[[Page 28220]]

artificial advantage relative to applications of the dominant OS 
supplier. The greater Microsoft's share across all middleware 
applications markets, the greater the applications barrier to entry.
    Thus, a remedy that does not forbid Microsoft's anticompetitive 
tying leaves in place one of Microsoft's most powerful tools to 
maintain its OS dominance--;and as a result, does not 
``unfetter'' the market or ``terminate'' the 
illegal monopoly. For this reason, the PFJ's failure to include a 
ban on bundling is not in the public interest.
    C. By Allowing Microsoft To Continue To Tie Its Middleware 
Applications To Windows, Microsoft Retains One Of The Most Valuable 
``Fruits'' Of Its Illegal Acts.
    The Court of Appeals made clear that one necessary element of 
any remedy in this case was to ``deny to [Microsoft] the fruits 
of its violation.'' See Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 103 (quoting 
United Shoe Mach. Corp., 391 U.S. at 250). This is in accord with 
the prevailing doctrine in this area. See Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 
at 577; 2 P. Areeda & H. Hovenkamp, Antitrust Laws 
 325(c) (2d ed. 2000).
    The Court of Appeals found that Microsoft illegally maintained 
its OS monopoly by engaging in anticompetitive practices. See 
Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 51, 66. Here, because of the nature of its 
monopoly, one of the most lucrative fruits of Microsoft's illegal 
behavior is the ability to bundle its other software products with 
the OS and reap gains in those markets as well. In this way, the 
PFJ's failure to ban such tying clearly renders it deficient, 
because without such a prohibition it will fail to prevent future 
violations of Section 2, as discussed above--;and also fail to 
prevent Microsoft from reaping the benefits of the OS monopoly that 
it illegally maintained. Without such a prohibition, Microsoft will 
be able to continue profiting from its anticompetitive behavior and 
will have evaded any real punishment for breaking the law.
    For these reasons, as with the ban on code commingling discussed 
above, every other remedial proposal considered in this litigation 
included a ban on Microsoft's contractual tying via bundling. A 
formulation of such a ban was found in Judge Jackson's interim 
conduct remedies, which--;in addition to the ban on binding 
middleware products to the OS--;would also have prohibited 
Microsoft from ``conditioning the granting of a Windows 
Operating System Product license ... on an OEM or other licensee 
agreeing to license, promote, or distribute any other Microsoft 
software product that Microsoft distributes separately from the 
Windows Operating System Product in the retail channel or through 
Internet access providers, Internet content providers, ISVs or 
OEMs.'' United States v. Microsoft, 97 F. Supp. 2d 59, 68 (D.DC 
2000). Judge Posner's proposal would have prohibited tying any 
middleware product with the OS unless Microsoft offered a version of 
the OS without the middleware application, and did so at a reduced 
price. See Posner Proposal * 3(9). The litigating states also have 
proposed a very similar remedial approach. (See LSRP at 4-;6.) 
Thus, it is only the PFJ, among the various proposals, that has 
failed to take this essential step to terminate Microsoft's OS 
monopoly, and deny Microsoft the fruit of its illegal acts. A remedy 
without such a provision cannot be in the public interest.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\We have argued elsewhere that there could be 
alternatives to a ban on contractual tying that might, over time, 
also prove effective. For example, if a remedial plan included a 
strong provision to permit licensing of Windows, not just to OEMs, 
but to third parties as well, and such a regime became 
effective--; so that there was active and effective retail 
competition for bundled OS applications offerings--;then the 
necessity for banning Microsoft's contractual tying would be 
somewhat lessened. In such an instance, Microsoft's potential for 
abusive tying could be disciplined by competition from competing 
bundles. However, absent such competition--;which the PFJ does 
not create--;a ban on contractual tying is absolutely essential 
to achieve the remedial objectives of this case--;and thus, the 
PFJ's failure to include such a provision is fatal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IV. THE PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT FURTHER FAILS THE PUBLIC 
INTEREST TEST, BECAUSE IT DOES NOT ACHIEVE EVEN THE LIMITED 
OBJECTIVES THAT IT HOLDS OUT AS ITS AIMS.
    As demonstrated above, the PFJ fails to address Microsoft's 
anticompetitive tying of middleware applications to the Windows OS, 
and consequently fails to fulfill the remedial mandate of the Court 
of Appeals. Yet. even for those anticompetitive acts that the PFJ 
does attempt to address, it does not provide an adequate remedy for 
Microsoft's illegal conduct. Indeed, the PFJ is so replete with 
carefully crafted carve-outs and exceptions that many of its 
provisions, though well intentioned, are rendered meaningless. The 
result is that the PFJ will do little, if anything, either to 
terminate Microsoft's monopoly or constrain its ability to fend off 
middleware threats in the future. And, as we argue above, the 
preliminary experience with these provisions--;since the onset 
of their implementation by Microsoft--; provides little reason 
to believe that the PFJ will be effective in practice. See Section 
II, supra.
    While any conduct remedy will, of course, have limitations and 
the potential for evasion, none of the major defects in the PFJ are 
inherent in the nature of this sort of remedy. The Litigating 
States'' Remedial Proposal provides a useful contrast on this 
point. Unlike the PFJ, the LSRP does not leave certain of 
Microsoft's anticompetitive acts unaddressed or leave Microsoft with 
the ability to perpetuate its operating system monopoly by illegally 
eliminating competitive threats from middleware developers. The 
Litigating States'' Remedial Proposal prevents Microsoft from 
continuing its anticompetitive practices, is designed to restore the 
competitive balance in the marketplace, and seeks to ensure that 
competitive threats may emerge in the future unhindered by 
Microsoft's anticompetitive conduct. As such, it fully comports with 
the Court of Appeals'' decision and provides this Court with a 
clear roadmap of what the public interest requires in this case.
    To avoid undue length or repetition, we do not here provide a 
comprehensive list of all the numerous inconsistencies, loopholes, 
and shortcomings of the PFJ; we have included, in Attachment B, a 
more complete listing for the Court's benefit. (See A Detailed 
Critique of the Proposed Final Judgment in U.S. v. Microsoft, 
Attachment B.) In this Section, instead, we focus on six critical 
deficiencies in remedies that (unlike tying) are purportedly 
addressed in the PFJ: (1) the PFJ's failure to prevent Microsoft's 
discriminatory licensing practices; (2) its limited and slow-moving 
API disclosure provisions; (3) its inadequate protections for OEMs 
from retaliation; (4) its failure to promote distribution of Java; 
(5) its ``gerrymandered'' definition of middleware; and 
(6) its complete lack of an effective enforcement mechanism. Where 
helpful, we contrast the relevant provision in the litigating 
states'' proposal for comparison's sake. By comparing the two 
proposals on a few central issues, it should be clear why the LSRP, 
and not the PFJ, addresses Microsoft illegal conduct in manner that 
both comports with the Court of Appeals'' decision and serves 
the ``public interest'' under prevailing antitrust law.
    A. The PFJ Allows Microsoft To Continue Engaging In 
Discriminatory And Restrictive Licensing Agreements To Curtail The 
Use Of Rival Middleware Products.
    One of the ways in which the District Court found, and the Court 
of Appeals upheld, that Microsoft illegally protects its operating 
system monopoly from rival middleware is through discriminatory and 
restrictive licensing provisions. Specifically, the Court of Appeals 
found that Microsoft uses its licenses not only to reward OEMs that 
utilize and promote its products (and to discriminate against those 
OEMs that wish to promote non- Microsoft products), but also to 
restrict the manner in which OEMs can distribute rivals'' 
products. See Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 61-;67.
    Despite these findings, the PFJ permits Microsoft to continue to 
employ discriminatory and restrictive licensing agreements to 
curtail the use of its competitors'' products. As currently 
structured, the PFJ allows Microsoft to continue its use of 
discriminatory and restrictive licensing provisions to fend off 
nascent threats from middleware competitors in several ways. First, 
the PFJ explicitly allows Microsoft to provide market development 
allowances to favored OEMs; it likewise allows Microsoft to enter 
into ``joint ventures'' with OEMs, that, in practice, are 
little more than shells for arrangements by Microsoft to shower 
financial rewards on OEMs that are willing to refuse to deal with 
Microsoft's competitors. Given the intense competition and low 
margins in the OEM industry, these rewards would create a decisive 
competitive disadvantage for ``disfavored'' OEMs, forcing 
them to accede to Microsoft's restrictive terms.
    The PFJ's mechanisms for enabling these anticompetitive tactics 
are surprisingly explicit. Under Section III.B.3 of the PFJ, 
Microsoft is allowed to pay OEMs ``market development 
allowances'' to promote Windows products. Thus, OEMs that 
promote Microsoft products apparently can receive de facto cash 
rebates on their Windows shipments, while OEMs that deal with 
Microsoft's rivals ``.',,ill pay full list price. This 
preferential behavior in the browser market ,,,,,as found illegal by 
both the District Court and the Court of Appeals.

[[Page 28221]]

See Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 60-;61. Microsoft should be allowed 
to engage in leg/t/mate pricing decisions, but those decisions 
should be limited to volume-based discounts published in its price 
lists?\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\Less explicitly, but perhaps even more nefariously, 
the same provision that authorizes continuation of ``market 
development allowances'' (i.e., III.B.3) says that Microsoft 
may also maintain ``programs ... in connection with Windows 
[OS] products.'' This appears to be a carefully veiled 
reference to Microsoft's use of ``Marketing Development 
Funds''--;highly discretionary, highly targeted payments to 
OEMs that can be yet another means of effectively rendering the list 
price of Windows economically irrelevant. While the PFJ ostensibly 
says that these ``programs'' must have ``objective 
criteria,'' ``neutral'' criteria can be easily 
formulated that have the effect of rewarding favored players and 
punishing less cooperative OEMs, given the small number of major 
OEMs in existence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, under Section III.G.2 of the PFJ, Microsoft may use 
``joint ventures'' to escape any restrictions the proposed 
settlement would place on its licensing practices. For example, 
Microsoft may join an OEM in a joint venture for any ``new 
product, technology or service'' or improvement to any existing 
``product, technology or service,'' provided that the OEM 
contributes significant developer ``or other resources.'' 
(See PFJ at Section III.G.2.) In such an arrangement, Microsoft can 
seek, and obtain, a pledge that its partner be ``prohibit[ed] 
... from competing with the object of the joint venture ... for a 
reasonable period of time.'' (Id. at III.G.) Thus, Microsoft 
could enter into a ``joint development'' project for the 
``new product'' of ``Windows X for Preferred OEM 
Y.'' The OEM's contribution could be entirely in marketing and 
distribution. Yet, under the language of the PFJ, it appears that 
Microsoft would have the ability to contractually prohibit OEMs in 
such joint ventures from offering products or services that compete 
with Microsoft. Given Microsoft's history of abusive and coercive 
behavior toward OEMs, it should not be allowed to enter into joint 
ventures with OEMs that result in exclusive agreements. Otherwise, 
in no time at all, Microsoft will use the opportunity to squelch 
competition.
    Third, the PFJ purports to provide OEMs with the freedom and 
flexibility to configure the computers they sell in a way that does 
not discriminate against non-Microsoft products. Under Section 
III.C, the PFJ ostensibly prohibits Microsoft from entering into an 
agreement that would--;among other things--;restrict an 
OEM's ability to remove or install desktop icons, folders and Start 
menus, and modify the initial boot sequence for non-Microsoft 
middleware. However, the PFJ contains carve-out provisions that may 
render these prohibitions effectively meaningless. Under the express 
terms of Section III.C. 1 of the PFJ, Microsoft may retain control 
of desktop configuration by being able to prohibit OEMs from 
installing or displaying icons or other shortcuts to a non-Microsoft 
product or service, if Microsoft does not provide the same product 
or service. Thus, for example, if Microsoft does not include a media 
player shortcut inside its ``My Music'' folder, it can 
forbid an OEM from doing the same. This turns innovation--;and 
the premise that OEMs be permitted to differentiate their 
products--;on its head: under the PFJ, rivals can 
``compete'' with Microsoft, but they are never allowed a 
chance to bring a product to market first, to offer a functionality 
before Microsoft does, or to benefit from their innovations before 
Microsoft determines that it is ready to meet (and if history is a 
guide, extinguish) these competitive challenges.
    Additionally, under the PFJ, Microsoft can control the extent to 
which non- Microsoft middleware is promoted on the desktop by virtue 
of a limitation that OEMs may promote such software at the 
conclusion of a boot sequence or an Internet hook-up only if they 
display no user interface or a user interface that is ``of 
similar size and shape to the user interface provided by the 
corresponding Microsoft middleware.'' (See PFJ at III.C.3.) And 
OEMs are allowed to offer Internet Access Provider 
(``IAP'') promotions at the end of a boot sequence, but 
only for their own LAP offerings (whatever that ambiguous limitation 
means). (See id. at III.C.5.) Thus, under the PFJ, Microsoft 
maintains the ability to set the parameters for competition and user 
interface.
    In order to promote competition from rival middleware, Microsoft 
must be prohibited from entering into restrictive and 
discriminator)'' contractual agreements with its licensees. 
Although remedial proposals could have been crafted to address these 
anticompetitive practices, the PFJ falls short of this mark.
    By contrast, the Litigating States'' Remedial Proposal 
would bring Microsoft's unlawful behavior to an end and thus provide 
competing middleware the opportunity to receive effective 
distribution through the important OEM channel. Under the LSRP, 
Microsoft would be required, at a minimum, to offer uniform and non-
discriminatory license terms to OEMs and other third-party 
licensees. The LSRP would also require Microsoft to permit its 
licensees to customize Windows to include whatever Microsoft 
middleware or competing middleware the licensee wishes to sell to 
consumers. (See LSRP at 7-;9.)
    In addition, the LSRP specifically prohibits Microsoft from 
employing market development allowances, including special discounts 
based on joint development projects?\34\ It also gives OEMs and 
other third-party licensees the flexibility to feature non-Microsoft 
products in ways that increase the likelihood that consumers will 
use them, without providing broad exceptions that enable Microsoft 
to avoid its obligations?\35\ Thus, it is the LSRP--;and not the 
PFJ--;that meets the Tunney Act's ``public interest'' 
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\(See States'' Proposed Text * 2(a) 
(``Microsoft shall license, to Covered OEMs and Third-Party 
Licensees, Windows Operating System Products .... pursuant to 
uniform license agreements with uniform terms and conditions. 
Microsoft shall not employ Market Development Allowances or other 
discounts, including special discounts based on involvement or any 
joint development process... ``).)
    \35\(See States'' Proposed Text
    2(c) (``Microsoft shall not restrict (by contract or 
otherwise, including but not limited to granting or withholding 
consideration) an OEM or Third-Party Licensee from modifying the 
BIOS, boot sequence, startup folder, smart folder (e.g., MyMusic or 
MyPhotos), links, internet connection network servers, web servers, 
and hand-held devices. The PFJ does not; by contrast, the Litigating 
States'' Remedial Proposal expressly provides that Microsoft 
must disclose all APIs, technical information, and other 
communications interfaces so that Microsoft software installed on 
one computer (including personal computers, servers, handheld 
computing devices and set-top boxes) can interoperate with Microsoft 
platform software installed on another computer. (See LSRP at 11.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    B. The PFJ Requires Microsoft To Disclose APIs Only In Certain. 
Narrow Circumstances. Another key element of the government's case 
against Microsoft was the company's withholding of the operating 
system's API information from rivals, so as to illegally decade the 
performance of rival applications. In any market where Microsoft is 
allowed to withhold APIs, rival software will perform imperfectly in 
the Windows environment, and Microsoft will illegally gain 
dominance. Accordingly, in order to promote competition from rival 
middleware developers, it is essential that Microsoft be required to 
provide timely access to all technical information required to 
permit non-Microsoft middleware to achieve interoperability with 
Microsoft software.
    Section III.D of the PFJ imposes an obligation on Microsoft to 
disclose to Independent Software Vendors (``ISVs''), and 
others, the APIs that Microsoft middleware uses to interoperate with 
any Windows OS product. However, the PFJ's requirement for API 
disclosure is drawn much too narrowly to allow non-Microsoft 
middleware to compete fairly with Microsoft middleware. Here again, 
a comparison with the proposal of the litigating states is 
instructive.
    First, the PFJ's disclosure requirement fails to prevent 
``future monopolization,'' because it fails to apply to 
critical technologies that Microsoft is likely to use to maintain 
the power of its OS monopoly in the future. Because nascent threats 
to Microsoft's monopoly operating system currently exist beyond the 
middleware platform resident on the same computer, any effective API 
disclosure requirement must apply to all technologies that could 
provide a competitive platform challenge to Windows, including 
wizard, desktop, preferences, favorites, start page, first screen, 
or other aspect of any Middleware in that product.'').)
    Second, the PFJ creates an apparent exception for Microsoft's 
API disclosure requirement in the emerging areas of identity 
authentication and digital rights management 
(``DRM'')--;critical applications that are also 
important to the prospects of Microsoft's ``future 
monopolization.'' Section III.J.1.(a) appears to exempt 
Microsoft from disclosing any API or interface protocol ``the 
disclosure of which would compromise the security of... digital 
rights management.., or authentication systems, including without 
limitation, keys, authorization tokens or enforcement 
criteria.'' This exception is written much more broadly than 
any of the limits on Microsoft behavior, and could easily be used to 
protect Microsoft's APIs relating to DRM and identity authentication 
applications. The implication of this is that any rival DRM or 
authentication software will not function as ,,','ell as Microsoft's 
DRM, Passport, and .Net

[[Page 28222]]

My Services (formerly known as Hailstorm). Thus, under the PFJ, 
Microsoft may be able to degrade the performance of any rivals to 
any of these services.
    These markets, however, are just as important to the next stage 
of the industry's evolution as browsers were to the last stage. DRM 
solutions, for example, allow content vendors to sell audio and 
video content over the Internet on a ``pay for play'' 
basis. Since the most prevalent use of media players in the years 
ahead will be in playing content that is protected in this fashion, 
if non-Microsoft media players cannot interoperate with 
Windows'' DRM solution, those media players will be virtually 
useless except for ``freeware'' content.\36\ Thus, if DRM 
is exempt from API disclosures under the PFJ, Microsoft can destroy 
the competitive market for one of the most vital forms of 
middleware--;media players.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\See Brad King, Microsoft Poised for Music Domination, 
Wired, June 14, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The authentication exemption is potentially even more far-
reaching. 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 Microsoft's Passport, may allow Microsoft to participate in a 
substantial share of consumer e-commerce transactions over the 
Interact, irrespective of which device is used to access the 
Internet (cell phones, handheld computers, etc.). If Microsoft 
prevents competition with its Passport standard, it may be able to 
realize its stated goal of charging a fee for every single e-
commerce transaction on the Internet.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\As Nathan Myrhvold, Microsoft's former chief 
technology officer, put it, Microsoft's strategy is to ``get a 
``vig,'' or ``vigorish,'' on every transaction 
over the Internet that uses Microsoft's technology.'' David 
Bank, Microsoft Moves To Rule On-Line Sales, The Wall Street 
Journal, June 5, 1997, at B1. The term refers to a gambling house's 
``cut'' on all bets placed in the establishment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the guise of security, Microsoft has obtained a loophole 
in the PFJ that undercuts a critical disclosure requirement. 
Microsoft's legitimate security concerns--; which, of course, 
are shared by all of its major business rivals--;do not require 
this loophole. Section III.J.2 of the PFJ excludes from disclosure 
rights any company with a history of software counterfeiting or 
piracy or willful violation of intellectual property rights, or any 
company that does not demonstrate an authentic and viable business 
that requires the APIs. This means that Microsoft only has to 
disclose to bona fide software rivals whose interests in security 
and stability are as Meat as Microsoft's. As added protection, 
Section III.J.l.(b) of the PFJ allows Microsoft to refrain from any 
disclosure simply by persuading an impartial government body, on a 
case-by-case basis, that a specific disclosure would put system 
security at risk. Together, these provisions provide Microsoft with 
all the room it needs to take legitimate security precautions.
    Once again, the litigating states'' proposal provides a 
useful contrast. It contains no disclosure ``carve out'' 
to exempt DRM and identity-authentication from the general 
disclosure obligation imposed on Microsoft. (See LSRP at 11.) 
Instead, it creates a regime of timely, complete, and comprehensive 
API disclosure that will allow competitors an opportunity to 
challenge Microsoft's efforts to entrench its OS monopoly in a 
market where distributed computing is the dominant model--;an 
opportunity that was sadly missed as the browser became critical to 
Internet-related applications, due to Microsoft's anticompetitive 
refusals to share technical information. Thus, once again, it is the 
LSRP, not the PFJ, that would meet the Court of Appeals'' 
objectives and the public interest standard.
    C. The PFJ Does Not Ban Many Forms Of Retaliation By Microsoft 
Against OEMs.
    The District Court found, and the Court of Appeals upheld, that 
in order to create a competitive market structure in which non-
Microsoft middleware products are able to compete effectively with 
Microsoft products, licensees, such as OEMs, must have the ability 
to distribute and promote non-Microsoft products without fear of 
coercion or interference from Microsoft. Recognizing the central 
role that OEMs play in the distribution and ultimate usage of non-
Microsoft middleware products, the PFJ includes an anti- retaliation 
provision which is intended to protect those entities that support 
or promote non-Microsoft products. According to the Department of 
Justice, this anti-retaliation provision ``broadly prohibits 
any sort of Microsoft retaliation against an OEM based on the OEM's 
contemplated or actual decision to support non-Microsoft 
software.'' (See CIS at 25.)
    Unfortunately, the PFJ does not provide the broad protection 
from Microsoft's retaliation that the government claims it does. 
Indeed, the PFJ's anti-retaliation provision is so narrow that it 
will do little, if anything, to protect OEMs that wish to distribute 
or promote non-Microsoft products. The PFJ's anti-retaliation 
provision is deficient in numerous respects. First, it appears to 
create only a narrow range of procompetitive activities that OEMs 
can engage in without being subject to Microsoft retaliation. For 
example, the PFJ prohibits retaliation for OEMs that promote rival 
middleware, but does not appear to prohibit retaliation against OEMs 
that promote any other type of rival software (which, under the 
PFJ's language, probably includes rivals to Passport, MS Money, 
Windows Movie Maker, and MSN Messenger, just to name a few). Even if 
this glitch were unintentional, the ambiguity might still be 
sufficient to allow Microsoft to coerce OEMs into avoiding Microsoft 
rivals.
    Second, even within the scope of protected OEM activities, the 
PFJ appears to bar only certain types of Microsoft retaliation. The 
PFJ prohibits Microsoft from withholding ``newly introduced 
forms of non-monetary Consideration'' from OEMs, but is less 
clear about whether Microsoft may use already-existing forms of 
consideration to retaliate against OEMs. (See PFJ at III.A.) More 
importantly, while the PFJ prohibits Microsoft retaliation via an 
alteration of commercial agreements, it does not appear to prohibit 
any other form of Microsoft retaliation (e.g., product 
disparagement) that Microsoft can imagine.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\For example, the PFJ does not appear to foreclose a 
Microsoft strategy whereby OEMs would be told that senior Microsoft 
executives and spokespeople will opine that the product of OEM X 
works better than the product of OEM Y, if OEM Y refuses to install 
only Microsoft applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, under Section III.A of the PFJ, Microsoft may, sua 
sponte, terminate an OEM's Windows license after sending the OEM two 
notices stating that it believes the manufacturer is violating its 
license* There need not be any adjudication or determination by any 
independent tribunal that Microsoft's claims are correct. All that 
is required are two notices; after that, Microsoft may terminate an 
OEM's license. This provision means that the OEMs are, at an), time, 
just two registered letters away from unannounced economic calamity; 
after all, given Microsoft's monopoly on the operating system, 
termination of an OEM's Windows license is a death sentence for an 
OEM's business.
    Again, such inadequate safeguards are not inherent in an 
effective non- retaliation protection. For instance, the Litigating 
States'' Remedial Proposal prevents Microsoft from taking any 
action that directly or indirectly adversely affects OEMs or other 
third-party licensees that in any way develop, distribute, support 
or promote competing products, thereby providing the type of 
protection contemplated by the Court of Appeals. (See LSRP at 
13-;14.) Thus, the Litigating States'' Remedial Proposal 
clearly prohibits Microsoft retaliation for any procompetitive OEM 
behavior and prohibits all forms of Microsoft retaliation. 
Importantly, the LSRP also prohibits Microsoft from retaliating 
against any individual or entity for participating in any capacity 
in any phase of this litigation. Again, it is the LSRP that meets 
the Court of Appeals'' objectives for this case--; not the 
PFJ.
    D. The PFJ Does Nothing To Remedy Microsoft's Illegal Campaign 
To Eliminate Java.
    Yet another aspect of the trial court's decision that was upheld 
on appeal by the DC Circuit was the District Court's finding that 
Microsoft's actions in eliminating the threat posed by Sun 
Microsystems'' Java technology were unlawful under Section 2 of 
the Sherman Act. See Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 74-;75. The PFJ, 
however, omits any remedy for this core abuse. Thus, unlike either 
the District Court's remedy or the remedy Judge Posner suggested, 
the PFJ does not protect those specific products, such as Java, that 
actually compete with Windows today and offer alternatives to 
Microsoft's dominance.
    The Litigating States'' Remedial Proposal addresses this 
deficiency by requiring that Microsoft distribute Java with its 
platform software for a period of ten years. (See LSRP at 
17-;18.) The LSRP recognizes, as did the District Court and 
Judge Posner, that in order to ensure that rival products such as 
Java can compete with Microsoft, they must receive the widespread 
distribution that they could have obtained absent Microsoft's 
unlawful behavior.

[[Page 28223]]

    The requirement that Microsoft distribute Java with its 
operating system and Internet Explorer browser takes on even greater 
importance in light of Microsoft's recent behavior. For example, 
although the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's finding that 
Microsoft targeted and destroyed independent threats from the Java 
programming language, see Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 53-;56, 60, 
Microsoft announced less than a month later that it was dropping any 
support for Java from Windows XP. As The Wall Street Journal 
reported at the time, ``This favors Microsoft's new 
technologies, and will inconvenience consumers .... [I]f you want 
your Web page accessible to the largest number of people, you may 
want to drop Java'' and switch to Microsoft's competing set of 
products, which is under development and is known as NET.''\39\ 
Thus, notwithstanding the Court of Appeals'' holding that 
Microsoft illegally maintained its monopoly by requiring major 
independent software vendors to promote Microsoft's JVM exclusively 
(i.e., by requiring developers, as a practical matter, to make 
Microsoft's JVM the default in the software they developed), 
Microsoft is again acting illegally to maintain--;and further 
entrench--;its operating system monopoly against Java's 
middleware threat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\John R. Wilke and Don Clark, Microsoft Pulls Back Its 
Support for Java: New Windows XP System Won't Include Software 
Needed to Run Programs, The Wall Street Journal, July 18, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To remedy the specific and extensive anticompetitive tactics 
aimed at Java, as found by the District Court and affirmed by the 
Court of Appeals, Microsoft should be ordered--;as outlined in 
the Litigating States'' Remedial Proposal--;to distribute 
with its platform software a current version of the Java middleware. 
This would ensure that Java receives widespread distribution, thus 
increasing the likelihood that it can serve as a viable competitive 
platform to Windows. Although rivals such as Java will likely remain 
small players compared to the dominant Windows OS, their existence 
on the competitive fringe is critical to provide some competitive 
discipline to Microsoft on pricing and coercion matters. Moreover, 
the existence of these rivals creates a base for future developments 
that might one day provide true alternatives to Windows.
    E. The PFJ Includes A ``Gerrymandered'' Definition Of 
Middleware. Though not readily apparent, the effectiveness, or lack 
thereof, of the PFJ's restrictions on Microsoft's behavior heavily 
depends on the proposed agreement's definition of 
``middleware.'' Under the proposed settlement, OEMs are 
protected from retaliation and can promote competitive alternatives 
to Microsoft products only in the area of middleware. Thus, if rival 
software falls outside of the definition of middleware, Microsoft 
can essentially use its coercive might to prevent that software from 
being distributed via OEMs. Conversely, if a Microsoft product is 
not classified as middleware, Microsoft is permitted to use coercion 
to force its adoption and promotion.
    The PFJ adopts a new, and greatly narrowed, definition of 
middleware, both in terms of ``Microsoft Middleware 
Products'' and ``non-Microsoft Middleware.'' The 
result is significant because under the newly created definition, 
Microsoft may be able to subvert many of the PFJ's restrictions. 
Tile Litigating States'' Remedial Proposal defines middleware 
in a manner consistent with the definition adopted by both the 
District Court and the Court of Appeals.\40\ It thus prevents 
Microsoft from using a definitional shell game to avoid changing its 
unlawful behavior.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\(See States'' Proposed Text  22(w).)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The District Court and the Court of Appeals adopted the same 
definition of middleware: software products that expose their own 
APIs; are written to interoperate with a variety of applications; 
and are written for Windows as well as multiple operating systems. 
See Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 53; see also Findings of Fact, 84 F. 
Supp. 2d at 17-;18,  28-;29. Thus, while 
the DC Circuit discussed browsers and the Java technologies as 
leading examples of middleware, Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 59-;78, 
it never adopted an exclusive list limited to specific products (as 
the PFJ does).\41\ Importantly, the Court of Appeals also agreed 
with the District Court that the appropriate category of 
``middleware'' applications that merit protection against 
Microsoft's anticompetitive conduct includes .any application that 
could operate separately or together with other such applications to 
create even the ``nascent'' potential for alternative 
platforms that could compete with Microsoft's OS monopoly. Id. at 
52-;54, 59-;60, 74.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\See also Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 59 (referring to 
browsers as exemplary of ``any middleware product, for that 
matter''); id. at 74 (Java is a set of technologies that 
``is another type of middleware posing a potential threat to 
Windows'' position as the ubiquitous platform for software 
development'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These standard definitions of middleware were also endorsed in 
the Posner Proposal, which, as noted above, Microsoft was reportedly 
ready to accept last year. Section 2(3) of the Posner Proposal 
defined middleware broadly, to include any ``software that 
operates between two or more types of software.., and could, if 
ported to multiple operating systems, enable software products 
written for that middleware to be run on multiple operating 
systems.'' Moreover, the substantive portion of the Posner 
Proposal, in Section 3(8)(c), explicitly included not just 
enumerated products, but also an)'' ``middleware 
distributed with such operating system installed on one personal 
computer to interoperate with any of the following software 
installed on a different personal computer or on a server: (i) 
Microsoft applications, (ii) Microsoft middleware, or (iii) 
Microsoft client or server operating systems.''
    The PFJ departs significantly from these established definitions 
of middleware and instead adopts wholly new definitions for both 
``Microsoft Middleware Products,'' and ``non-
Microsoft Middleware.'' These definitions include several flaws 
that Microsoft may be able to use to anticompetitively advantage its 
applications, continue to profit from the fruits of its illegally 
maintained monopoly, and evade the practical consequence of the PFJ 
for many product lines.
    To start, the PFJ's definition of ``Microsoft Middleware 
Products'' appears to limit this category to five specifically-
listed existing products and their direct successors? This makes no 
sense for two reasons. First, why define the most critical term in 
the proposed settlement narrowly when Microsoft has already 
demonstrated its skill at evading consent judgments?\42\ And second, 
why does the list include certain Microsoft products, but arguably 
not their virtually indistinguishable cousins: i.e., Outlook 
Express, but not Outlook; Windows Messenger, but not MSN Messenger; 
the Microsoft JVM, but not MSN RunTime; Internet Explorer, but not 
MSN Explorer. Likewise, Microsoft middleware applications such as 
the MSN client software and Passport appear to be excluded. The 
significance of these omissions cannot be overstated. For example, 
although Microsoft must allow OEMs, under the PFJ, to remove end-
user access to Internet Explorer, the decree's language appears to 
allow Microsoft to ban any effort to replace MSN Explorer with a 
competitor. This is a step backwards from the status quo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\The PFJ does contain a generic middlewaredefinition, 
see Section VI.K.2, but this applies only to new products, and 
therefore does not capture an)'' product now in existence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, Section III.H.2 of the PFJ explicitly limits OEM 
flexibility to set non-Microsoft Middleware as a default so that it 
can be automatically invoked: the PFJ appears to allow OEMs to do so 
only with competitors of ``Microsoft Middleware Products'' 
that (1) appear in separate Top-Level Windows, with (2) separate 
end-user interfaces or trademarks. Thus, Microsoft might be able to 
avoid the PFJ's provisions simply by embedding Microsoft middleware 
with other middleware, or not branding it with a trademark. That 
means Microsoft--;not the OEMs, and certainly not the 
market--;would determine the scope of desktop competition and 
the pace of desktop innovation.
    Conversely, the definition of the rivals to Microsoft Middleware 
Products--; ``non Microsoft Middleware Product''- is 
also jury-rigged to advantage Microsoft. Under Section IV.N of the 
PFJ, protected middleware products are limited to those applications 
``of which at least one million copies were distributed in the 
United States within the previous year.'' Thus, developers have 
no protection from Microsoft's well-honed predatory tactics until 
they can obtain substantial distribution.
    The PFJ's middleware definition also does not explicitly include 
web-based services, the most important future platform challenge to 
the Windows monopoly. These web-based services represent an 
important and growing type of middleware, and the PFJ's failure to 
explicitly cover them may allow Microsoft to recreate and extend its 
desktop monopoly to new platforms.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\See Rebecca Buckman, Microsoft Says Its Future Lies 
in Subscriptions, The Wall Street Journal, May 31, 2001.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 28224]]

    The newly created and narrowly crafted definitions of middleware 
in the PFJ pave the way for Microsoft to avoid many of the 
prohibitions on its conduct. The middleware definitions in the LSRP, 
on the other hand, are consistent with those endorsed by the 
District Court and Court of Appeals, and ensure that the protections 
from Microsoft's illegal conduct are extended to Microsoft's 
competitors in critical middleware markets.
    F. The PFJ Lacks A Meaningful Enforcement Mechanism.
    For any remedy against Microsoft to be effective, it must 
include a strong, timely, and meaningful enforcement mechanism. The 
PFJ creates an extraordinarily weak enforcement authority--;one 
that likely will be overwhelmed and co-opted by Microsoft. More 
specifically, as currently drafted, there are two principal problems 
with the PFJ's enforcement mechanism.
    First, the proposed decree leaves all enforcement to a single, 
three-person Technical Committee (``TC''). With no looming 
antitrust proceedings to put pressure on Microsoft to behave, 
Microsoft will have every incentive to hinder the efforts of the TC. 
Moreover, Microsoft will have substantial insights and influence 
over the TC--;Microsoft will appoint at least one member of the 
TC (the first two members will appoint the third); the TC will be 
stationed full-time on Microsoft premises; and the TC will rely for 
many types of enforcement on a compliance officer hired and paid for 
by Microsoft. In light of all this, it would be easy to imagine a 
situation where the TC, during the entirety of its existence, never 
took a single action critical of or hostile to Microsoft, no matter 
what behaviors Microsoft engaged in.
    Second, the enforcement authority has no power other than the 
authority to investigate. The TC cannot expedite claims, assess 
fines, or otherwise move quickly to redress Microsoft's illegal 
behavior. If the TC finds any abuse, its only recourse will be to 
the courts, through mini-retrials of United States v. Microsoft. 
Moreover, under Section IV.D.4.(d) of the PFJ, the TC is prohibited 
from using any of its work product, findings, or recommendations in 
any court proceedings. Thus, even if the TC eventually refers a 
matter to the courts, the proceedings will have to start from 
scratch. The history of the 1994 consent decree shows the futility 
of this type of approach.
    By contrast, the Litigating States'' Remedial Proposal 
recommends the creation of a Special Master who is empowered and 
equipped to investigate Microsoft's behavior in a manner that is 
prompt and resolute. The appointment of a Special Master with 
defined remedial powers is essential if Microsoft's unlawful 
behavior is to be curbed and competition restored to the 
marketplace. Thus, the creation of a Special Master provides for a 
mechanism that is much more effective in ensuring Microsoft's 
compliance with the settlement decree, and does not suffer from the 
defects identified above in the PFJ's TC proposal.
    First, unlike the TC in the PFJ, a Special Master, as selected 
by the Court, would be independent. He or she would not be dependent 
on Microsoft for resources, appointment, or other needs.
    Second, under the Litigating States'' Remedial Proposal, 
the Special Master would have the authority to identify, 
investigate, and quickly resolve enforcement disputes. For example, 
under the States'' proposal, the Special Master would have the 
power and authority to take any and all acts necessary to ensure 
Microsoft's compliance. (See States'' Proposed Text 
 18(b).) The Special Master would have the benefit of 
both business and technical experts. (See id.  18(d).) 
Upon receipt of a complaint, it would be required to make an initial 
determination of whether an investigation is required within 
fourteen days. After notifying Microsoft and the complainant of its 
decision to investigate, Microsoft would then have fourteen days to 
respond. After Microsoft's response, the Special Master would be 
required to schedule a hearing within twenty-one days, and fifteen 
days after the hearing, would be required to file with the Court its 
factual findings and a proposed order. (See id.  18(f).)
    Unlike the enforcement mechanism in the PFJ, the creation of a 
Special Master as outlined by the States would prevent disputes over 
Microsoft's compliance from becoming wars of attrition that would 
drain the system and guarantee Microsoft victory. The history of 
this case, and of antitrust regulation in general, suggest the need 
for an enforcement mechanism that can ensure the timely resolution 
of any disputes and minimize any demand on judicial resources. The 
enforcement provisions contained in the Litigating States'' 
Remedial Proposal accomplish these objectives.
    V. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE STRONGLY MILITATE IN FAVOR OF 
GATHERING EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY--;EITHER IN A HEARING, OR 
THROUGH THE USE OF THE RECORD FROM THE REMEDIAL PROCEEDING--;TO 
DETERMINE IF THE PFJ MEETS THE PUBLIC INTEREST TEST.
    We believe, for the reasons presented above, that the PFJ fails 
the Tunney Act's ``public interest'' test and should be 
rejected. At the very least, however, there is ample basis for the 
Court to conclude that a rigorous hearing is needed to air the 
objections to the PFJ and resolve the doubts that the Court 
hopefully has about the proposed decree. While it need not be a 
lengthy proceeding, the Court may also want to consider accepting 
evidence and taking testimony- or alternatively, making use of 
record evidence it will receive in the upcoming proceeding 
concerning the LSRP. The question of what can be learned about the 
PFJ's prospects for effectiveness, since its partial implementation 
began in July (and, in other respects, December), is especially 
critical, and would benefit from additional fact-finding by the 
Court.
    A. The Complexity And Significance Of This Case--;And The 
Inadequacy Of The CIS -All Militate In Favor Of A Hearing On The 
PFJ. Of all the cases in which courts have reviewed proposed consent 
decrees to make a public interest determination under the Tunney 
Act, the case most similar to the present action is American Tel. 
& Tel. Co., 552 F. Supp. at 131, aff'd sub nom Maryland v. 
United States, 460 U.S. 1001 (1983), in which Judge Greene subjected 
the government's proposed consent decree with AT&T to intense 
judicial review.\44\ In AT&T, the court recognized that the 
proposed settlement not only would dispose of ``what is the 
largest and most complex antitrust action brought since the 
enactment of the Tunney Act, but [] itself raises what may well be 
an unprecedented number of public interest questions of concern to a 
very large number of interested persons and organizations.'' 
American Tel. & Tel. Co., 552 F. Supp. at 145.\45\ In light of 
the size and the complexity of the case,\46\ 46 as well as its 
``unfortunate history'' and the interests of third 
parties, the court held an extensive hearing to address key issues 
raised by the consent decree and the comments of interested parties. 
Id. at 147, 152. The case for an extensive hearing on the PFJ in 
this proceeding is overwhelming for similar reasons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\Similar to the case at hand, Judge Greene in ,4 
T& T had a well-developed factual record on which to base his 
public interest determination. In .4 T&T, the parties reached 
their settlement following a period of discovery, pretrial motions, 
and an eleven-month trial. Shortly before the evidence phase was to 
end, the Department of Justice and the defendant agreed upon, and 
submitted to the court, a proposed final judgment.
    \45\Here, of course, the proposed consent decree was 
reached after a full trial on the merits, as well as an affirmance 
by the Court of Appeals, upholding the District Court's findings of 
liability against Microsoft. The court also acknowledged that if 
approved, the proposed decree ``would have significant 
consequences for an unusually large number of ratepayers, 
shareholders, bondholders, creditors, employees and 
competitors,'' and would affect ``a vast and crucial 
sector of the economy.'' /d. at 152.
    \46\The Senate sponsor of the Tunney Act, Senator Tunney, 
specifically cited a case's complexity as a factor militating in 
favor of conducting a hearing on the adequacy of a decree. See 119 
Cong. Rec. S3453 (daily ed. February 6, 1973) (statement of Sen. 
Tunney).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, this is an extremely complicated case, to say nothing of 
the profound consequences any settlement will ultimately have on the 
computer and Internet industries. The economic significance of the 
computer industry is unquestioned. In such an environment, expert 
economic analysis is critical to help the Court not only understand 
the incentives that will drive Microsoft's response to any proposed 
settlement, but also assess whether the PFJ will succeed in bringing 
the monopolist's unlawful behavior to an end and promoting 
competition in a market that has long been restricted. Given the 
complexity of this case, the Court should not approve the PFJ 
without an adequate hearing to consider the many- and often 
technical--;objections to it that will doubtlessly be raised in 
the Tunney Act submissions.
    Second, in temps of the impact that an{time} , proposed 
settlement in this case will have on the public, Judge Greene's 
depiction of the AT&T case is, once again, more than fitting 
here: ``[t]his is not an ordinary antitrust case.'' Id. at 
151. Microsoft is one of our nation's largest corporations. It plays 
a central role in one of the country's most critical and important 
industries, and thus in our country's economy. Any settlement that

[[Page 28225]]

addresses Microsoft's illegal conduct in a manner that is consistent 
with the Court of Appeals'' decision and prevailing antitrust 
law will have far-reaching consequences on numerous organizations, 
both public and private, as well as on Microsoft, its employees, 
shareholders, competitors, and most importantly, consumers. Thus, a 
hearing to consider the breadth and depth of these consequences is 
in order before the PFJ is approved.
    Third, a hearing should be held to require the Justice 
Department to answer the many questions surrounding the 
PFJ--;raised here, and doubtlessly elsewhere--;that the 
Competitive Impact Statement ignores or fails to adequately address. 
Why was a new, ``gerrymandered'' definition of middleware 
used in the PFJ--;instead of the definition used by both the 
trial and appellate courts, and in every other remedial proposal? 
Why was a Java- related remedy omitted, when that was such a key 
part of the case? Why were only some forms of retaliation, for only 
some procompetitive acts, prohibited? And most importantly, why does 
the PFJ not address all of the anticompetitive wrongs that were 
found at trial, and upheld on appeal--;including, most 
especially, Microsoft's unlawful tying? These questions are not 
answered by the CIS, as the Tunney Act directs and the public 
interest demands, and as the Court would surely desire. A full 
review of these questions, and many others, is needed by the Court 
before it can approve the PFJ (if it is inclined to approve the 
PFJ).
    Thus, in light of the specific objections from third parties 
revealing the PFJ's numerous deficiencies--;and the oddity of 
the differing remedial proposals now before the Court--;the 
Court should hear oral argument and, if necessary, take additional 
testimony. Giving the government an opportunity to explain the 
omissions in its proposed settlement, and third parties the 
opportunity to demonstrate the efficacy of the litigating 
states'' proposal, will afford the Court the necessary basis on 
which to make its public interest determination in this important 
and unprecedented case.
    B. The Court Should Conduct A Proceeding--;Taking Evidence 
And Hearing Testimony, If Necessary--;To Determine How The PFJ's 
Provisions Have Functioned Since Some Were Put In Place In 2001.
    A second rationale for a hearing is to develop a factual record 
concerning the point we make in Section II, supra: namely, that the 
Court can assess the prospects for the likely effectiveness of the 
PFJ by seeing how those provisions that have been implemented are 
starting to work--;or not--;in practice.
    Above, we have suggested that the empirical record developed in 
the PC industry since Microsoft's July 11, 2001 announcement of 
``greater OEM flexibility for Windows,'' and since 
Microsoft began to implement many of the PFJ's remedial provisions 
on December 16, 2001, should be examined carefully by this Court as 
it determines whether the PFJ is in the ``public 
interest.'' We also express the view that these provisions 
have, in fact, been ineffectual in promoting competition and are 
showing no signs that they will yield change in the competitive 
position of non-Microsoft middleware--;and as a result, cannot 
be said to be in the public interest.
    At the same time--;while we doubt it, seriously--;we 
recognize it is theoretically possible that there may be reasons why 
these provisions have not yet shown signs of effectiveness, but 
would be effective over time. At least, that is what Microsoft and 
the Justice Department are likely to assert. If the Court is 
inclined to give these assertions any credence, that is all the more 
reason for the Court to conduct a proceeding--;taking evidence 
and hearing testimony, if necessary- to make a determination on such 
claims based on empirical evidence, rather than relying upon 
hypothetical contentions or abstract theories. Such a proceeding is 
authorized by the Tunney Act, see 15 U.S.C. * 16(f), and would be 
appropriate in this instance.
    Evidence and testimony from the OEMs can make clear whether they 
are taking advantage of the ``new flexibility'' ostensibly 
being provided under the PFJ--;and if not, why not. Given the 
OEMs'' likely fears of retaliation from testifying in such a 
proceeding--;as reflected by their apparent (and understandable) 
reluctance to testify in the remedial proceeding--;the Court may 
want to consider appointing a Special Master to take evidence from 
the OEMs confidentially.\47\ Likewise, evidence and testimony from 
non- Microsoft middleware companies can indicate how the provisions 
of the PFJ, after they have been in place for several months, 
are--;or are not--;enabling them to compete with Microsoft. 
The same can be said for OS rivals to Microsoft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\The Court is authorized to appoint a Special Master 
to conduct inquiries as part of this Tunney Act proceeding. See 15 
U.S.C. * 16(f)(2). Making a determination as to why OEMs have failed 
to use their ``new found freedoms''--;and whether they 
are likely to do so in the future--;would seem to be a task well 
suited to a Special Master.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The point is that while we firmly believe that the publicly 
available information and reports all indicate that the PFJ's 
provisions, as implemented since December 16th (and the browser-
related PFJ provisions, as implemented since July 11th), have done 
little or nothing to promote competition, the Court may wish to base 
such a conclusion upon a judicially developed record that would 
allow both proponents and opponents to offer explanations and 
evidence in support of their views. Such a proceeding could be of a 
more informal nature, i.e., the Court could solicit comments from 
the relevant parties and industry experts; or it could be conducted 
by a Special Master, as we suggest above; or it could be a more 
formal, trial-type undertaking. All of these approaches are 
authorized under the Tunney Act, which grants wide discretion to the 
court to adopt whatever form of proceeding it considers most 
effective. See 15 U.S.C. 16, passim. But on one point, 
the Act, or at least its legislative history, is rather firm: 
``[T]he court must obtain the necessary information to make [a] 
determination that the proposed consent decree is in the public 
interest.'' 1974 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6535, 6538-;39 (H.R. Rep. 
93-;1463, quoting S. Rep. 93-;298, at 6-;7 (1973)) 
(emphasis added). Some sort of proceeding to examine these questions 
is justified in these circumstances,\48\ and could be helpful to the 
Court in its consideration of the practical effects of the PFJ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\While Congress made clear, in enacting the Tunney 
Act, that such hearings were to be the exception, and not the rule, 
see 1974 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6535, 6539 (quoting S. Rep. 93-;298, at 7 
(1973)), this may well be one of those cases where an evidentiary 
inquiry is called for.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    C. In Making Its ``Public Interest'' Determination. 
This Court Should Take Into Account The Evidence That Will Be 
Adduced In The Upcoming Remedial Proceeding. Finally, the Court 
should take advantage of the Tunney Act's broad procedural 
flexibility to use the record evidence that will be amassed in the 
upcoming remedial proceeding as it make its ``public 
interest'' determination in this review. The Court's Tunney Act 
review of the PFJ in this proceeding can be substantially assisted 
by the record developed in the forthcoming proceeding on the LSRP. 
As we have argued, the Court's objectives in both proceedings are 
the same--;namely, to terminate Microsoft's illegal conduct, 
prevent the recurrence of such conduct, and create a market 
structure in which competition does not simply exist in theory, but 
actually yields real alternatives to Microsoft's products. Moreover, 
the Court's analysis in both proceedings is guided by the\49\ same 
legal principles. See Section I, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\This is not to say that the PFJ should be rejected 
merely because it is not identical to the remedy that the Court 
might impose in the remedial proceeding. See supra note 2. 
Conversely, acceptance of the PFJ would not preclude the Court from 
imposing a different remedy in the proceeding being pressed by the 
litigating states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many of the questions the Court must answer in the course of 
reviewing the PFJ--;e.g., What sort of anti-retaliation 
provisions are needed to empower OEMs and foster real competition? 
Must third parties be empowered to promote competition through 
offering alternatives to the ``Windows bundle'' for a 
remedy to be effective?--;will be addressed, in whole or in 
part, in the remedial proceeding. To the extent that these questions 
can only be answered by hearing testimony from some of the same 
individuals and the same sources in the remedial proceeding, the 
Court's reliance on that evidence in this proceeding would result in 
a more comprehensively informed review, streamline the Court's 
resolution of the issues, and lead to a much more efficient use of 
judicial resources.
    The Tunney Act itself grants the Court wide discretion to 
undertake any procedures it ``may deem appropriate'' in 
making its public interest determination. 1 5 U.S.C. * 1 6(0(5). 
This includes using evidence from another proceeding. See American 
Tel. & Tel. Co., 522 F. Supp. at 136. As the court noted in 
AT&T, ``[i]n a Tunney Act proceeding the Court is not 
limited by the rules of evidence but may take into account facts and 
other considerations from many different sources.'' Id. at 136 
n. 7 (emphasis added). In that case, the court relied on a report by 
the Antitrust Subcommittee of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 
which had conducted an investigation of the matter, to fill in gaps 
left in the court record. Id. at 136. Ira court can

[[Page 28226]]

weigh an evidentiary record compiled by the Congress, it surely can 
weigh an evidentiary record of its own creation in a related 
proceeding. \50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\Although the circumstances in which the AT&T 
court considered the subcommittee's report are different from those 
here, the Tunney Act clearly allows this Court to rely on evidence 
from a variety of sources. The legislative history of the Act makes 
clear that Congress did not intend to limit the techniques a court 
could use to make its public interest determination. See 1974 
U.S.C.C.A.N. 6535, 6539 (quoting S. Rep. No. 93-;298, at 6 
(1973)) (``Section 2(f) sets forth some techniques which the 
court may utilize in its discretion in making its public interest 
determination. It is not the intent of the Committee to in any way 
limit the court to the techniques enumerated.'')* Indeed, 
Congress anticipated that by giving trial courts wide discretion to 
collect evidence and conduct procedures in the way they saw fit, 
courts would be able to adduce the necessary information in the 
least complicated and most efficient manner possible* See id. 
(``The Committee recognizes that the court must have broad 
discretion to accommodate a balancing of interests... It is 
anticipated that the trial judge will adduce the necessary 
information through the least complicated and least time-consuming 
means possible.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Court is currently overseeing a wide range of discovery, 
both written and oral, in the remedial proceeding. Testimony will 
presumably be taken from a host of witnesses that will establish, 
among other things: how Microsoft deals with OEMs, including how 
various Microsoft practices limit OEM flexibility in configuring the 
desktop; \51\how Microsoft has used the commingling of code, and 
other forms of binding its middleware to the OS, to reinforce the 
applications barrier to entry; how Microsoft has used discriminatory 
and anticompetitive licensing agreements to limit the distribution 
and use of rival products; how Microsoft's illegal conduct has 
worked to destroy Java; how Microsoft's .Net initiative repeats the 
illegal monopoly leveraging tactics it successfully used to decimate 
Netscape; how Microsoft's concealment of APIs decades the 
performance of non-Microsoft products and services; and how 
Microsoft has manipulated industry standards and developed 
proprietary standards and formats that limit the interoperability of 
competing products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\As we note above, the OEMs appear understandably 
reluctant to testify in the remedial proceeding* This is all the 
more reason to use a Special Master (or other procedural device) to 
ascertain confidentially their views of the PFJ's provisions and the 
likely effectiveness of those provisions. See supra note 47 and 
accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This evidence, which will be presented during the Court's 
remedial hearing later this Spring, will form the basis on which the 
Court crafts its remedy in the ongoing litigation. It is our view 
that this evidence will affirmatively demonstrate why the LSRP, and 
not the PFJ, fulfills the mandate of the Court of Appeals and 
comports with well settled antitrust law. By the same token, it will 
also demonstrate why the PFJ fails to redress Microsoft's illegal 
behavior in a manner consistent with tile public interest.
    Because many of the questions the Court faces in this proceeding 
mirror those in the remedial proceeding, the Court should take the 
record evidence from the remedial proceeding into account in 
conducting its Tunney Act review of the PFJ. Simply put, by 
utilizing this evidence, the Court will adduce the information it 
needs to make its ``public interest'' determination in a 
manner that encourages greater efficiency and avoids unnecessary 
delay or duplication.
    CONCLUSION
    The Court should refuse to find that entry of the PFJ is 
``in the public interest.'' The PFJ does not unfetter the 
market from Microsoft's dominance; it does not terminate the illegal 
monopoly; it does not deny to Microsoft the fruits of its statutory 
violations; and it does not end Microsoft's practices that are 
likely to result in monopolization in the future. More specifically, 
the PFJ does not even attempt to address, let alone end, Microsoft's 
illegal binding and bundling practices that have done so much to 
fortify its OS monopoly and to harm desktop competition. And its 
limited provisions are so filled with loopholes and exceptions that 
they are rendered ineffective. At the very least, the Court should 
refuse to approve the PFJ until after it has concluded an extensive 
review, including an inquiry into whether the PFJ's 
provisions--;as implemented by Microsoft since last 
year--;are showing signs of effectively restoring competition to 
the marketplace. The Court could conduct an evidentiary hearing, 
appoint a Special Master, and/or rely upon the record that will be 
adduced in the trial on the Litigating States'' Remedial 
Proposal to meet its evidentiary needs.
    In the end, it is the proposal of the litigating 
states--;not the PFJ--;that meets the public interest 
standard. The Court should reject the PFJ, and impose a strong, 
effective and forward-looking remedy that addresses Microsoft's 
proven anticompetitive conduct in a manner consistent with the 
mandate of the Court of Appeals and the nation's antitrust laws.
    Dated: January 28, 2002
    Paul T. Cappuccio
    Edward J. Weiss
    AOL TIME WARNER, Inc.
    75 Rockefeller Plaza
    New York, New York 10019
    (212) 484-;8000
    Respectfully submitted,
    --;?
    Ronald A. Klain
    Benjamin G. Bradshaw
    Jessica Davidson Miller
    O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
    555 13th Street, NW, Suite 500 West
    Washington, DC 20004-;1109
    (202) 383-;5300
    Randall J. Boe
    Laura E. Jehl
    AOL, Inc.
    22000 AOL Way
    Dulles, Virginia 20166
    (703) 265-;1000
    ATTORNEYS FOR AOL TIME WARNER, INC.
    

MTC-00028284--;0066
    ATTACHMENT A
    

MTC-00028284--;0067
    Microsoft's Tying Strategies To Maintain
    Monopoly Power !n Its Operating System
    (Civil Actions No. 98-;1232 and 98-;1233 CKK)
    Submitted on behalf of AOL Time Warner by Frank Mathewson and 
Ralph A. Winter Charles River Associates Inc.
    Suite 1501
    80 Bloor Street West
    Toronto, Ontario M5S 2V1
    Canada
    January 28, 2002
    

MTC-00028284--;0068
    TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION--;1
MICROSOFT HAS MANY TECHNIQUES AT ITS DISPOSAL FOR TYING MIDDLEWARE 
TO WINDOWS--;2 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS SHOWS THAT MICROSOFT HAS 
SUBSTANTIAL INCENTIVES TO USE TYING TO SUSTAIN ITS OPERATING SYSTEM 
MONOPOLY, HARMING CONSUMERS AND COMPETITION--;4
A. As a general matter, absent legal constraints, Microsoft 
possesses substantial economic incentives to integrate its products 
in a manner that reinforces its OS monopoly--;5 (1) Microsoft 
ties its applications to its operating system as a way of sustaining 
the applications barrier to entry--;5
(2) Microsoft ties applications to its operating system as a way of 
deterring direct challenges to Windows'' position as the 
dominant platform for software developers--;7
(3) Microsoft has incentives to tie to achieve a monopoly in 
complementary applications as insurance against possible future 
erosion of its OS dominance--;9
(4) Microsoft's operating system also has durable-goods qualities 
that create further anti-competitive incentives for tying--;12
(5) Microsoft's anti-competitive tying incentives are mutually 
reinforcing and are manifest in strategies that lack any competitive 
justification--;14
B. Microsoft's anti-competitive incentives are particularly powerful 
in the markets for browsers and streaming media, as well as the 
adjacent markets for content-encoding, digital rights management, e-
commerce, and convergence--;15
C. The theorized benefits of product integration that may exist in 
some cases do not apply to the markets at issue in this 
case--;19
(1) The economics of software markets cast doubt on Microsoft's 
efficiency arguments for integration of its own browser and media 
player with the OS--;20
(2) Contrary to Microsoft's claims, issues of pricing and innovation 
provide further evidence that Microsoft's tying harms the 
marketplace and consumers--;22
GIVEN THE INCENTIVES, HISTORY, AND EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, THE 
CONCLUSION IS THAT MICROSOFT HAS ENGAGED, AND IS ENGAGING, IN ANTI-
COMPETITIVE TYING IN ORDER TO PROTECT AND STRENGTHEN ITS OPERATING 
SYSTEM MONOPOLY--;24
A. Microsoft's options, incentives, and history create a strong 
presumption that Microsoft's tying harms OS competition and 
consumers--;24
B. The evidence indicates that Microsoft is anti-competitively tying 
the browser and the media player with its operating system--;25

[[Page 28227]]

CONCLUSION--;28
APPENDIX: CURRICULUM VITAE OF FRANK MATHEWSON--;1
APPENDIX: CURRICULUM VITAE OF RALPH WINTER--;1
    INTRODUCTION
    We have been engaged in this case as professional economists \1\ 
to assess the economic incentives and effects of Microsoft's tying 
practices. Our specific charge is to determine whether Microsoft is 
tying middleware applications to its operating system 
(``OS'') in a manner that protects and reinforces its 
monopoly power in the market for operating systems. Middleware is 
software that runs on the OS platform, i.e., that calls on the basic 
operating system through application programming interfaces 
(``APIs'') of the OS in order to invoke functions of the 
OS, but which in turn contains its own published APIs that allow 
higher-level applications to run on the middleware itself.\2\ To 
execute our mandate, we have reviewed the economic incentives at 
play in this market, conducted interviews with various software 
developers, and studied the key documents in this case, including 
the Proposed Final Judgment and the Competitive Impact Statement of 
the U.S. Department of Justice, the submissions made on behalf of 
Microsoft, and the Comments Of AOL Time Warner On The Proposed Final 
Judgment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\Mathewson is a Professor of Economics and Director of 
the Institute for Policy Analysis at the University of Toronto and 
Winter is a Professor of Economics and Finance at the University of 
Toronto. Both are Senior Consultants to Charles River Associates. 
Our curriculum vitae are attached as appendices to this report.
    \2\Middleware and operating systems, i.e., any software 
which exposes APIs so that higher level applications run on top of 
the software, are together referred to as platform software.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on our analysis, we conclude that Microsoft has tied its 
middleware applications to its Windows operating system in ways that 
preserve and reinforce its monopoly power in the market for 
operating systems on PCs, damaging competition and harming 
consumers. The anti-competitive use of tying strategies to maintain 
a monopoly in this manner is, in our understanding, a violation of 
Section 2 of the Sherman Act. We conclude that market forces alone 
do not discipline Microsoft to limit the integration of middleware 
code into its OS or the bundling of middleware products with its OS 
to efficiency-enhancing levels. Rather, Microsoft has the ability to 
tie in ways that lack pro-competitive justification, and in any 
event has incentives to use tying strategies to integrate 
applications into its OS more aggressively than justified by 
efficiency.
    We begin in the next section with a brief description of the 
tying strategies at Microsoft's disposal. We then demonstrate 
through economic analysis that Microsoft has substantial incentives 
to tie its middleware products to its monopoly OS to reinforce and 
entrench that monopoly. Given these incentives, Microsoft's history, 
and the evidence in this case, we conclude that Microsoft has 
engaged, and is engaging, in anti-competitive tying, and is doing so 
in a way that maintains its OS monopoly, to the detriment of 
consumers and competition.
    MICROSOFT HAS MANY TECHNIQUES AT ITS DISPOSAL FOR TYING 
MIDDLEWARE TO WINDOWS.
    Microsoft has various means of binding its middleware products 
to the Windows operating system. Before describing these practices 
and the ways in which Microsoft uses them to reinforce its OS 
monopoly, we explain the general concept of middleware and why 
Microsoft's licensing of middleware with its OS in the Windows 
package constitutes tying.
    Middleware is exemplified by products such as Internet browsers, 
including Microsoft's Internet Explorer (``IE'') and 
Netscape's Navigator, media players, instant messaging, and 
middleware applications platforms such as Java. By a strategy of 
tying middleware to the OS, we mean any constraint that Microsoft's 
operating system be bought with (or bound to) Microsoft middleware 
products, or any contractual or financial inducement to this end. 
Microsoft has argued that various middleware applications, 
especially IE and Windows Media Player (``WMP''), are 
essential components of an integrated operating system rather than 
distinct products, and that tying or bundling these products with 
the core operating system therefore does not constitute tying. 
Microsoft's argument is incorrect.
    Middleware products, such as browsers and media players, are 
sold in separate markets. Users can obtain Navigator or RealPlayer 
without purchasing an operating system in the same transaction. 
Users can also obtain IE or MSN Messenger without obtaining Windows. 
Until Microsoft bundled WMP into Windows, users could obtain these 
two products in separate transactions. Moreover, these products are 
clearly sold by different suppliers. The Court cannot give serious 
weight to Microsoft's argument that once WMP, for example, is 
integrated into Windows, the media player ceases to be a separate 
product: If this argument were accepted, then the mere fact that 
Microsoft integrates application code into the operating system 
would itself be a defense for its actions. In other words, tying, as 
a means of reinforcing a monopoly position, would constitute its own 
defense. The law, we suggest, cannot intend this.
    Tying involves contractual arrangements whereby Microsoft puts 
pressure on original equipment manufacturers (``OEMs'') or 
end-users to acquire Microsoft applications as a condition of 
acquiring Windows. It includes requirements that OEMs install 
Microsoft applications, rather than applications developed by 
Microsoft's rivals, and prohibitions on removing or uninstalling 
those applications. It also includes financial inducements to adopt 
Microsoft applications when Windows is purchased and installed. Each 
of these requirements is enforced through Microsoft's coercive power 
to harm non-adhering OEMs.
    Tying also involves desiring the OS so that Microsoft's 
applications are integrated into the OS code, leaving rival 
applications unnecessary or even dysfunctional. This type of tying 
includes: (a) basic integration of code; (b) efforts by Microsoft to 
hinder disintegration; and (c) efforts to hamper the 
interoperability of rival applications. Basic integration involves 
providing, as part of the OS, services previously offered as stand- 
alone applications. This could be done in a purely modular fashion 
without the commingling of application code into the kernel of the 
operating system. If done in this manner, the products can be easily 
removed and replaced with competing products in a ``plug and 
play'' fashion. Technological efforts that hinder 
disintegration, however, have stronger anti-competitive overtones. 
These include: commingling code in a manner that hampers, and 
perhaps even bars, the replacement of the products or default 
options; designing the OS so that Microsoft's applications are 
chosen as default applications; making it difficult for OEMs or 
users to replace the icons or launch sequences; and creating 
utilities to ``sweep'' the Windows desktop and replace 
non-Microsoft icons. Note that some of these forms of tying, such as 
hampering rivals'' performance, entirely lack pro-efficiency 
rationales, while all of them can be used in inefficient, anti- 
competitive manners. The remainder of this paper demonstrates that 
Microsoft has strong incentives to engage in such anti-competitive, 
inefficient bundling, and that it is doing so in a manner 
detrimental to competition with the goal of maintaining its extant 
monopoly in operating systems.
    ECONOMIC ANALYSIS SHOWS THAT MICROSOFT HAS SUBSTANTIAL 
INCENTIVES TO USE TYING TO SUSTAIN ITS OPERATING SYSTEM MONOPOLY, 
HARMING CONSUMERS AND COMPETITION.
    Microsoft has maintained that its tying is efficient and that it 
should be allowed to determine the level of integration of 
applications into its operating system. Microsoft argues that it 
should be free to tie its products together in any fashion it sees 
fit, as this type of product integration is efficient and promotes 
innovation with eventual consumer benefits. These arguments 
generally claim to defend Microsoft's intellectual property, and are 
expressed in terms of the general advantages of product integration, 
rather than defining specific benefits to users from Microsoft's 
practice of tying particular middleware products, such as IE or WMP, 
into the Windows package.
    Microsoft's claim amounts to the belief that market forces alone 
achieve the optimal degree of product integration and separation 
without any further regulatory or legal constraints. As a matter of 
economic theory, this argument fails to take note of Microsoft's 
position as a dominant producer in a market with substantial 
barriers to entry. For this general market-forces argument to be 
valid, Microsoft would need to demonstrate that competitive vigor in 
the market will discipline Microsoft to engage only in tying that 
enhances efficiency. But such complete reliance on market forces to 
achieve efficiency, in turn, requires open entry, while the evidence 
in this case has shown that there are significant barriers to entry 
in the OS market. This leaves Microsoft in a position to exploit any 
strategic and anti-

[[Page 28228]]

competitive motives to integrate. As a matter of market reality, as 
we shall explain, the evidence demonstrates that Microsoft has 
engaged in tying to an excessive degree, with the sole purpose of 
achieving anti-competitive aims in general and OS monopoly-
preserving aims in particular.
    With respect to the practices of tying middleware, Microsoft's 
interests are not aligned with those of competition and consumers: 
Microsoft can benefit without improving its product by using tying 
strategies to reinforce and strengthen its existing OS dominance.
    A. As a general matter, absent legal constraints, Microsoft 
possesses substantial economic incentives to integrate its products 
in a manner that reinforces its OS monopoly.
    Below, we set forth four theories that explain why Microsoft's 
practice of integrating its applications with the Windows OS helps 
to maintain its OS monopoly, in a way that is detrimental to 
consumers and competition. First, tying helps to sustain the 
applications barrier to entry, and thus serves to enhance 
Microsoft's OS dominance. Second, tying deters direct challenges to 
Windows'' position as the dominant platform and thereby 
maintains or enhances Microsoft's OS dominance. Third, tying 
involves dynamic leveraging that permits Microsoft to achieve a 
monopoly in complementary applications as insurance against any 
possible erosion of the OS monopoly. Put another way, a monopolist, 
such as Microsoft which produces a pair of perfectly complementary 
products, aims to protect its full monopoly power by ensuring its 
future monopoly in at least one of the complementary products. 
Fourth, tying permits Microsoft to mitigate the competitive 
constraints on its operating system monopoly provided by previous 
releases of the OS. These four theories are not mutually exclusive; 
each of them contributes to a full understanding of Microsoft's 
anti-competitive conduct. And, to make matters worse, each of these 
anti-competitive results is mutually reinforcing because of the 
network effects operating between the applications sector and the 
operating system market.
    (]) Microsoft ties its applications to its operating system us a 
way of sustaining the applications harrier to entry. Microsoft has a 
general incentive to engage in anti-competitive tying to protect its 
dominance in operating systems against the possibility of 
competitive developments in applications markets. The first means by 
which it accomplishes this is through enhancing the applications 
barrier to entry\3\ The dominance of the Windows standard in a wide 
range of applications, or in a few particularly important 
applications, makes entry into the operating system market more 
difficult because an entrant has to offer both a new operating 
system and a full set of applications, or somehow rely on the chance 
that applications ,,,,,ill quickly develop once the new operating 
system becomes available. In this way, an entrant faces a 
``chicken-and-egg'' problem because of the indirect 
network effects in the operating system: the entrant could not 
succeed without a set of applications available to purchasers of its 
operating system; yet, few software developers would invest in the 
development of new applications based on an operating system without 
a large market share. This is referred to as the applications 
barrier to entry. The dominance of Windows as a standard for 
applications leads to the applications barrier to entry and growth 
in the operating system market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\See U.S. v. Microsoft, 84 F. Supp. 2d 9 (D.DC 1999) 
(``U.S. Findings of Fact''), 36ndash;44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Microsoft is able to sustain this barrier by exploiting a 
collective action problem among buyers. When Microsoft ties by 
supplying the OS with an application such as IE or WMP, users must 
incur a series of costs to replace the application. These costs 
include purchasing or downloading the substitute browser or media 
player, installing the application, and incurring any uncertainty 
associated with the possible compromise in the functional integrity 
of the system. In an application market, buyers would collectively 
be better off if each incurred the costs of purchasing from 
competing suppliers, because doing so would ensure greater 
competition in the future application market. However, Microsoft's 
tying practices preclude this result.
    Buyers'' purchase decisions with respect to either the 
operating system or applications collectively affect the future 
market structure because Microsoft will achieve dominance if most 
buyers choose Microsoft products. Once Microsoft achieves dominance, 
network externalities sustain this dominance so that the market 
structure becomes a monopoly as a result of buyers'' previous 
purchase decisions. The impact of each buyer's purchase decision on 
the future market structure, however, is negligible. Moreover, 
buyers do not take into account the impact of their purchase 
decisions on other buyers. As a result, even a small disadvantage to 
purchasing a competing product in the operating system or 
applications markets is enough to make the individual buyer prefer 
Microsoft's product.
    The result is that buyers'' decisions make them 
collectively worse off. The future dominance of Microsoft and the 
higher prices faced by buyers are a result of their collective 
decision to purchase Microsoft's applications. Microsoft exploits 
this collective action problem and pursues dominance in the 
applications markets through its tying practices. \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\In the economics literature, modem theories of anti-
competitive exclusion, including tying as exclusionary, are linked 
by the theme that exclusionary contracts have an impact on 
individuals outside an individual buyer-seller contract. See Dennis 
Carlton and Michael Waldman (2001) ``The Strategic Use of Tying 
to Preserve and Create Market Power in Evolving Industries,'' 
unpublished working paper; Eric Rasmussen et al., (1991) 
``Naked Exclusion,'' American Economic Review 81 (5): 
1137-;1145; Michael Whinston (1990) ``Tying, Foreclosure, 
and Exclusion,'' American Economic Review 80(4): 837-;859; 
and Philippe Aghion and Patrick Boulton (1987) ``Contracts as a 
Barrier to Entry,'' American Economic Review 77(3): 
388-;401.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Microsoft ties applications to its operating system as a way 
of deterring direct challenges to Windows position as the dominant 
platform for software developers.
    Microsoft's incentives for anti-competitive tying are 
particularly strong in the case of applications that might allow for 
the development of direct substitutes to the monopolized operating 
system. A clear incentive for Microsoft to tie its IE browser with 
Windows has been the threat that Netscape, either individually or 
combined with Java software, could eliminate Microsoft's network 
advantages in the operating system, by providing middleware (which 
serves potentially as universal translation support between any 
application and any operating system) that would provide a competing 
platform for software developers. This was a particular threat to 
Microsoft's dominance in operating systems because it potentially 
represented a platform/programming environment in which software 
applications Could be developed without regard to the underlying 
operating system. Middleware provides a layer of software between 
applications and the operating system and can accommodate a new 
operating system with a change in a single set of code. Without 
middleware, the success of a new operating system would depend on 
the development of new code by every application developer. This 
incentive also explains Microsoft's initiatives to develop a 
Microsoft version of Java in an attempt to undermine the universal-
translator aspect of Java.
    Some economists have argued that the backwards compatibility of 
Microsoft's version of Java, i.e., the ability of all general Java 
applications to run on Microsoft's version, rules out the hypothesis 
that Microsoft designed its version of Java for the purpose of 
stifling the potential threat to its dominance in operating systems. 
\5\ This argument is wrong in its static assumption about 
compatibility. Given the history of the industry, the fact that 
Microsoft's initial version of Java was universally compatible with 
Java applications does not lead one to believe that if Microsoft 
dominated not just browsers but also Java in the future, it would 
continue to assure both compatibility of applications and free 
distribution of the pair of middleware products. Were Microsoft to 
establish dominance in the potential browser-Java bypass of its 
operating system dominance, why would it allow the bypass to be 
freely and effectively available? The concerns expressed by 
Microsoft's executives about the risks of 
``commoditization'' of the operating system are well 
known. \6\ Middleware generally has the potential to act to varying 
degrees as a universal translator

[[Page 28229]]

between an operating system and specific applications, because (as 
the name suggests) middleware intermediates between the operating 
system and applications: it invokes calls through an operating 
system's APIs and in turn issues its own APIs to applications. To 
accommodate a new operating system, instead of each application 
requiring re-coding for compatibility, only the ``bottom 
half'' of the middleware application must be reprogrammed. If 
twenty applications run on top of a particular middleware program, 
for example, compatibility with a new operating system could be 
achieved by reprogramming the middleware program instead of 
reprogramming each application. Middleware thus mitigates the 
indirect network effects of the operating system--;and could 
potentially diminish the dominance of any operating system that 
these network effects support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\``Microsoft's Java virtual machine ... allowed 
for all programs written for the original (``pure'') Java 
to be run on it. Thus it preserved backward compatibility with the 
original Java that ran on all operating systems. Because of that, 
Microsoft's actions were not anti-competitive.'' Nicholas 
Economides, ``The Microsoft Antitrust Case,'' Journal of 
Industry, Competition and Trade.'' From Theory to Policy, March 
2001, p. 20 of working paper version.
    \6\In a 1995 memo to his ``Executive Staff and 
direct reports,'' Microsoft CEO Bill Gates stated that Netscape 
was ``pursuing a multi-platform strategy where they move the 
key API into the client to commoditize the underlying operating 
system.'' (5/26'95 ``The Internet Tidal Wave,'' PI. 
Ex.20, p. MS98 0112876.3.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) Microsoft has incentives to tie to achieve a monopoly in 
complementary applications as insurance against possible future 
erosion Of its OS dominance.
    A common response to the argument that monopolies can profit 
through leveraging into a second market is that monopoly profits can 
be collected only once: a tie into a complementary market with an 
increase in the price of the tied good by a dollar will reduce the 
demand price of the first good by a dollar. According to this 
response, there is no incentive to leverage. In the simplest, static 
world in which there are no industry dynamics, no uncertainty, and 
no variation in consumer demand, this ``one-monopoly 
theory'' is correct. This theory, however, fails when there is 
uncertainty about the preservation of monopoly. If the initial 
monopoly is at some risk, then an incentive for leverage arises as 
insurance against the loss of monopoly profits. In the event that 
the first monopoly fails and the second succeeds, the monopolist 
will have preserved a monopoly in at least one of the markets. \7\ 
Consistent with the common response, having a monopoly in only one 
of the pair of markets is sufficient to collect the full monopoly 
profits. If either market's monopoly is uncertain, the monopolist 
has an incentive to create monopolies in both markets, and thus 
increase the likelihood of being able to obtain monopoly profits in 
at least one market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\This idea is developed formally in J.P. Choi and C. 
Stefandis (2001), ``Tying, Investment and the Dynamic Leverage 
Theory,'' The RAND Journal of Economics 32( 1): 52-;74.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If Microsoft fears for the longevity of its operating system 
monopoly, or believes that operating systems are in a mature market 
with limited prospects for growth, it will have strong incentives to 
make minor sacrifices to Windows functionality in order to obtain 
dominance in high-growth markets. This is particularly true if the 
sacrifices (such as damaging relationships with OEMs and consumers 
by forcing them to accept an inferior browser or media player) have 
negligible effects on demand for Windows. The greater the threat to 
its OS dominance in the future, the more incentive Microsoft has to 
establish a dominant supplier position in an application market, 
such as the browser or media player market. To take a hypothetical 
future contingency, if the development of middleware means that the 
future OS market turns out to be more competitive than the current 
market, then Microsoft's actions to achieve dominance in the 
application market will leave it with dominance in one product of a 
pair of complementary products, rather than dominance in neither. 
Microsoft's incentive to establish dominance in key applications is 
thus strengthened by the fact that Microsoft's monopoly in the 
operating system market is not guaranteed to always be airtight. \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\See U.S. Findings of Fact  33-;35, 
60-;64.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The gains from leveraging are especially strong where network 
effects are present in applications markets or these markets 
otherwise promise large potential growth in revenues for any firm 
that establishes early dominance. \9\ Network effects have three 
implications that make Microsoft's tying practices particularly 
effective in reinforcing its OS dominance. First, in the early 
stages of the market's development, purchasers will be on alert for 
signals of which standard will eventually become dominant, in order 
to reduce their exposure to later costs of converting to the 
dominant standard. Tying a new application with the dominant Windows 
operating system will send strong signals to purchasers that will 
help to ``tip'' the market toward Microsoft's favored 
products, particularly given Microsoft's history. Second, a feedback 
loop will cause both the tying and Microsoft's dominance to steadily 
accelerate. As Microsoft begins to gain a substantial share in an 
application market, it will be able to engage in more overt forms of 
tying, as customers grow to accept even inconvenient results from 
Microsoft's ant/- competitive behaviors (such as poor 
interoperability with rivals) because of the reinforcing network 
effects. This, in turn, will accelerate the tipping toward Microsoft 
dominance. Third, once Microsoft's dominance is established, 
proprietary standards and continued tying will lock in this 
dominance, not just on current production but on ``future 
applications in the same functional space. While all of these 
effects promote Microsoft's dominance in applications, it is the 
feedback effect of this control over applications to reinforce the 
OS dominance that is relevant for the matter at hand. Network 
effects or network economies refer to the positive value that any 
single user derives from the number of other users adopting the same 
operating system. See U.S. Findings of Fact  39-;42 
and  65-;66 for application to Microsoft. For a 
general description of networks and positive feedback, see Carl 
Shapiro and Hal Varian (1999) Information Rules Boston: Harvard 
Business School Press, pp. 173-;225.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\It may appear that any preservation-of-monopoly theory 
must Be applied narrowly to Microsoft's monopoly power in operating 
systems. If this were the case, then the insurance theory of tying 
just described would not apply, since this theory explains why tying 
to establish dominance in a new market can be profitable because of 
the profits that can be captured in that new market, instead of why 
it is profitable to protect the monopoly in the operating systems 
market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The standard ``one-monopoly'' theory, however, tells 
us that when there are two perfectly complementary products A and B, 
a monopoly over either, or a monopoly on both, allows the identical 
profits and results in the identical effects. (This theory holds in 
a static framework that sets aside the other three theories that we 
discuss.) With respect to an OS with a set of applications that are 
virtually universally adopted by all PC users, a monopoly over the 
OS alone is identical in its effect and in its incentives to a 
monopoly over the set of applications alone or a monopoly over both 
the OS and the set of applications. That is, there is only one 
monopoly: the economic role of tying under the monopoly-insurance 
theory is not creating a new monopoly, but rather preserving the 
monopoly (the monopoly being at least one monopoly position in the 
OS-applications pair). The monopoly-insurance theory thus explains 
the anti-competitive use of tying to preserve a monopoly in 
violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
    The monopoly-insurance theory of tying has the effect of 
reinforcing Microsoft's monopoly position even if the preservation-
of-monopoly requirement of Section 2 of the Sherman Act is construed 
narrowly to apply only to Microsoft's existing monopoly on operating 
systems for PCs. The reason (discussed below) is that all of 
Microsoft's incentives for tying applications to Windows are 
mutually reinforcing. Even if Microsoft's incentive for tying were 
primarily to insure a monopoly in the event that the Windows OS 
monopoly failed in the future (the insurance theory), one effect of 
the tying is to reduce the chance that the Windows OS monopoly 
actually does fail, because of the strengthening of the applications 
barrier to entry. The impact is preservation, though imperfect, of 
Microsoft's monopoly in the operating system market.
    Microsoft's operating system also has durable-goods qualities 
that create further anti-competitive incentives for tying.
    Part of Microsoft's argument that it should be free to 
``innovate'' rests on the notion that an important source 
of ``competition'' in selling new versions of Windows is 
the existing stock of old versions of Windows.\10\

[[Page 28230]]

While it is true that the durable-goods aspect of the OS market 
(i.e., the ability of consumers to retain their existing versions of 
the OS instead of buying a new version) disciplines Microsoft, it 
only does so in the sense that Microsoft earns fewer profits than it 
would in a hypothetical world in which it were to lease its OS. The 
claim that the OS market is, in fact, more competitive than this 
hypothetical market does not weaken the claim that Microsoft's 
position in the OS market is dominant and that its activities are 
illegal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\The District Court's Findings of Fact maintain that 
the Windows leasing agreement prohibits the user from transferring 
the OS to another machine so that ``there is no legal secondary 
market in Microsoft operating systems'' ( 57). The 
Findings of Fact then note (* 58) that there is a thriving illegal 
market. To limit this, Microsoft advises OEMs that Microsoft will 
charge a higher price for Windows to OEMs that do not limit the 
number of PCs they sell without the OS pre-installed. One might 
argue that the durable goods monopoly problem is eliminated by 
Microsoft's refusal to allow OEMs to install (without penalty) old 
versions of Windows. This is incorrect for two reasons: (i) 
increases in the price of the new version of Windows will reduce 
overall demand for new PCs, as users invoke the option to keep 
existing PCs with the old version, and (ii) there is a retail market 
for new versions of Windows software for installation on existing 
PCs. Both (i) and (ii) provide channels through which the existing 
stock of Windows software provides some competition for a new 
version of Windows (i.e., it increases the elasticity of demand for 
the new version). If the price of a new version is increased, the 
demand for the new version is reduced because fewer consumers will 
purchase new PCs as the price increase for Windows raises the price 
of the overall package of the PC and the (mandated by Microsoft) new 
version of Windows, and because some consumers who would have 
purchased Windows to install on their old PCs will now refuse to do 
so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, this ``durable good monopolist'' feature of 
the market contains an incentive for Microsoft to engage in illegal 
bundling. The strategy of leasing as a means of escaping the durable 
monopolist's dilemma is well established and has been thoroughly 
analyzed by economists.\11\ Rather than selling the product into the 
market in each period, if the monopolist seller of a durable good 
can lease the product on a period-by-period basis, it can retain 
complete control over the supply of the good into the market in each 
period. This allows the monopolist to set monopoly prices in each 
period instead of being constrained by the consumers'' option 
to continue using the already-purchased stock (or version) of the 
product. The monopolist who leases for a period can lease both 
previous and current production together to achieve monopoly 
profits; doing so eliminates the competitive discipline that would 
otherwise occur as past sales re-enter current and future markets. 
If Microsoft could move to a business plan of leasing rather than 
selling software, it would completely eliminate competition from old 
versions of the software: as Microsoft leases new versions of 
software, it could retire leases on old versions. This would serve 
to protect the monopoly power that Microsoft enjoys from its OS. 
Tying can allow Microsoft to implement this leasing strategy so as 
to avoid the durable good discipline. Specifically, tying the use of 
the OS to some complementary transaction that can be leased, or 
priced on a per-use basis--;rather than sold--;provides 
Microsoft with the opportunity to collect a revenue stream that is 
immune to the competitive discipline imposed by previous versions of 
the OS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\See Jeremy Bulow ``Durable-Goods 
Monopolists,'' Journal of Political Economy 90(2): 
314-;332 or Jean Tirole (1988) The Theory of Industrial 
Organization, Cambridge: MIT Press, p. 81.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The escape from the durable monopolist's dilemma via leasing 
thus creates another incentive for tying. Tying allows Microsoft to 
move closer to the leasing outcome by facilitating the collection of 
transaction fees based on current usage. \12\ The set of middleware 
products that potentially puts Microsoft in the position of 
collecting a fee on Internet transactions serves this role. These 
products are IE, WMP, Microsoft's Digital Rights Management 
(``DRAM'') software, as well as the Net My Services 
initiative. The Digital Rights Management software, with WMP, will 
initially support a market for music and video products. The 
combination of these middleware applications, enabling the Microsoft 
e-commerce network, will then support the transition to Internet 
sales transactions of a broad variety of products. As Microsoft 
begins to shift its revenue structure from Windows sales to Internet 
transaction fees, it will seek to control the key Internet access 
choke points such as browsers, media players, and digital rights 
management. Tying facilitates this control. Moreover, Microsoft can 
directly charge usage fees for its media player software that it 
cannot charge for the OS. While the durable-goods monopoly theory of 
Microsoft's tying incentives can be seen most directly as a theory 
of the incentive to dominate applications that facilitate a leasing 
business plan, one important impact of dominating these applications 
is to preserve Microsoft's dominance in the market for operating 
systems. The impact, in other words, is a preservation of 
Microsoft's OS monopoly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\See Jeremy Bulow (1982:330) who suggests that a 
durable-goods monopolist may be able to achieve the leasing result 
through extending its monopoly to service contracts; these are 
analogous in principle to the application restrictions in the matter 
at hand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an empirical matter, versions of Windows are converging in 
their substitutability. This convergence of versions strengthens 
tile durable-good monopolist incentive to tie in two ways. First, it 
increases Microsoft's incentive to escape the durable-good 
monopolist discipline on prices, since the easier it is to 
substitute the current version of Windows with existing versions, 
the stronger this discipline is. Second, there are, in principle, 
two ways of leasing to escape tile durable-good monopoly discipline. 
Microsoft could rent the OS or tie it to an application and collect 
the corresponding stream of revenues each time the application is 
used. The converging substitutability of Windows'' versions 
renders the former more difficult, increasing the incentive to 
escape the durable-good discipline by tying applications. Thus, the 
increasing substitutability among sequential versions of Windows, 
even if later versions are superior, reinforces Microsoft's 
incentives to extend its monopoly to dimensions, such as Internet 
sales, in which it can charge a rig \13\ or rent the application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\The term ``rig'' or ``vigorish,'' 
a term used by Microsoft, refers to a gambling house's 
``cut'' on all bets placed in the establishment. See Allen 
Myerson, Rating The Bigshots: Gates vs. Rockefeller, The New York 
Times, May 24, 1998, at 4 (``The Gates crowd speaks ... of 
collecting a ``vigorish'' or ``vig'.... Now Microsoft 
wants to collect a rig on Internet access too.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (5) Microsoft's anti-competitive tying incentives are mutually 
reinforcing and are manifest in strategies that lack any competitive 
justification.
    The incentives for anti-competitive tying that we discuss are 
mutually reinforcing because of the network effects operating 
between the applications sector and the operating system market. 
Achieving dominance in applications (through tying) strengthens the 
dominance of the OS, because buyers in the OS market are more 
assured of available applications; the greater dominance in the OS 
market in turn feeds back into greater dominance in applications, 
since the tying strategies take the form of imposing an artificial 
advantage relative to applications of the dominant OS supplier. The 
greater Microsoft's share across all applications markets, the 
greater the applications barrier to entry. Greater shares in 
applications markets create a feedback effect of even greater 
dominance in the OS market. The source of this feedback effect is an 
``indirect network effect'': the greater the penetration 
of any operating system, the more applications will be written to 
it, and consequently, the more valuable the operating system will be 
``to any user. Since the OS monopoly is not perfect, Microsoft 
will therefore take advantage of anti-competitive opportunities to 
generally strengthen the applications barrier to entry. As a general 
principle, therefore, any extension of Microsoft's monopoly to a set 
of important applications reinforces its monopoly in operating 
systems.
    Microsoft has a clear incentive to engage in tying in the form 
of hampering rival applications and coding its own applications to 
be defaults to the detriment of consumer choice. This type of tying 
has a negligible negative effect on the demand for Windows, and by 
tipping high-growth markets, could provide Microsoft with long-term 
profits. Given that the Windows source code is both complex and 
proprietary, Microsoft can engage in this type of tying 
surreptitiously. For example, Microsoft can alter the algorithms 
that set ``favorites'' in folders and task bars so that 
Microsoft-preferred applications and web sites are used more 
frequently. In addition, Microsoft can cause subtle performance 
problems for rival applications in Windows environments. This type 
of tying, however, is consistent only with anti-competitive 
behavior--;no efficiency benefits result from ham-ting rivals or 
setting Microsoft options as defaults.
    B. Microsoft's anti-competitive incentives are particularly 
powerful in the markets for browsers and streaming media, as well as 
the adjacent markets for content-encoding, digital rights 
management, e-commerce: and convergence.
    In markets with network effects and perceived similarity in 
product functions, directional changes in market shares can 
``tip'' the market toward a dominant outcome because 
consumer expectations as to which format will dominate are self-
realizing. In other words, the expectation on the part of consumers 
that a particular format will dominate leads each consumer to choose 
that format because of the rational concern that other formats will 
not be supported--;accelerating the dominance and confirming the 
expectations of consumers. Consider the browser and the media player 
as examples. In the browser market, Microsoft has achieved the 
dominance that it sought, and its monopoly power in the OS 
continues. These are related: browser dominance reinforces OS 
monopoly power.\14\ The connection is that browser dominance

[[Page 28231]]

increases the applications barrier to entry and simultaneously 
removes the direct middleware threat posed by Netscape. Both of 
these effects in turn serve to increase the demand for the Windows 
OS through network effects as buyers anticipate continued dominance 
of Microsoft formats in both the operating system and applications 
markets; the two effects thus reinforce the dominance of Windows OS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\See U.S. Findings of Fact  68-;72.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Now that Microsoft has effectively achieved dominance in 
browsers, and through this reinforced its dominance in operating 
systems, the stage is set for applying the same tactics to markets 
for other applications. The media player market represents an 
important current market in which Microsoft's anti-competitive 
strategies are at play. In the media player market, Microsoft's 
first incentive for tying is to protect its dominance in the market 
for operating systems by deterring the development of new middleware 
platforms. Streaming media players will be essential for Internet 
browsing in the future because of their ability to enhance Internet 
content rendering under bandwidth constraints. If Microsoft achieves 
dominance in the media player market (and as noted above, the 
``tipping point'' argument suggests that a trend to 
dominance can quickly translate into a highly dominant market 
share), any entrant into the operating system market would also have 
to provide a media player compatible with the WMP format. For this 
reason, the applications barrier to entry incentive is especially 
powerful for streaming media players. Rival operating systems will 
be unable to provide a functional (i.e., Windows Media Audio-
compatible) media player since the Windows Media Audio format is 
proprietary and Microsoft refuses to universally license it. \15\ 
Because compatibility with streaming media is vital to future 
operating systems, Microsoft's dominance over operating systems will 
be ensured. The observation that Microsoft licenses the software for 
playing downloaded media, but not the software for streaming media, 
suggests that Microsoft is strategically aware of the profit-
enhancing power of retaining exclusive property rights on media 
streaming software.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\Note that licensing at a monopoly royalty would have 
a similar effect of foreclosing competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To elaborate: with respect to other applications, an entrant 
into the OS market could--;at least in theory- provide an OS 
plus a set of applications. However, even this potential entry 
strategy is not available in the case of the media player 
application, because the use of a media player by a user depends not 
just on products that could be provided by the new entrant, but on 
the proprietary formats chosen by Internet sites using media player 
software. In this sense, the provider selection of Microsoft's 
proprietary format creates a content-encoding barrier to entry for 
streaming media players. Again, this reinforces Microsoft's monopoly 
power over the OS market.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\Microsoft's action with respect to inducing media 
content providers to code exclusively with Microsoft's proprietary 
formatting (in Windows Media Audio) is analogous to Microsoft's 
attempt in the browser market to induce Interne/content and services 
providers to optimize their content for its Internet Explorer 
software instead of the competing browser of Netscape. See U.S. 
Findings of Fact  311,328, and 337.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An additional anti-competitive incentive for dominating an 
application market is to secure a monopoly position in at least one 
product in the application/OS pair in order to achieve monopoly 
profits even in the event that the OS dominance is not sustained. 
This is discussed above in Section III.A.3. The possibility that the 
OS dominance is not sustained means that the joint monopolist could 
not necessarily collect the maximum profits through the OS price 
alone. Dominance of the application market would secure, or at least 
increase the likelihood of, monopoly profits.
    This incentive is particularly relevant to streaming media 
markets. For example, the OS dominance could be at risk as consumers 
move to handheld devices for computing and accessing the Internet 
that do not require Windows OS. Presumably, however, these customers 
will still wish to play music and see videos on such devices. To the 
extent that WMP and its accompanying format achieve dominance for 
streaming media, Microsoft will maintain monopoly power in the pair 
of products consisting of the OS plus the media player. (Recall that 
the essential measure of monopoly in the markets for a pair of 
complementary products is dominance in at least one of the 
products.) Thus, streaming media players and formats hold the 
potential for Microsoft to maintain its original monopoly.
    Additionally, significant gain accrues ``to Microsoft if 
its DRM technology dominates the related market for audio and video 
files. Using encryption technology, DRM technology permits only 
users with licenses to play the packaged file. The license has a key 
to unlock the encryption. Should a user without a license attempt to 
play the file, the application initializes with an application that 
permits the user to acquire the license. Applications with DRM 
technology and Windows Media Device Manager enable the use of WMP on 
devices other than conventional desktop computers. Since market 
participants will tend to limit their investments to the likely 
dominant standard, Microsoft can easily become the sole provider of 
DRM solutions. Moreover, this will be a critical market for 
Microsoft, since users will require licenses for downloading, and 
content providers require certificates for encryption. The 
alternatives of mutual interoperability or even open standards are 
equally plausible conceptually, but not in Microsoft's interests. 
Microsoft thus has incentives to use tying to ensure that its DRM 
solution remains proprietary and becomes dominant. Microsoft can 
ensure this outcome by making its media player format the format of 
choice for both users and content providers, and tying WMP to 
Windows ensures this choice. Once again, this creates a content- 
encoding barrier to entry that permits Microsoft to maintain its 
monopoly power in the pair: OS plus WMP as an application. Because 
of the durable-goods nature of Microsoft's OS monopoly, as described 
in Section III.A.4 above, Microsoft has additional incentives to tie 
streaming media technologies to the OS. Indeed, the greatest value 
for locking in the dominant streaming media and DRM formats may be 
the rig that Microsoft hopes to collect from Internet transactions. 
\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\Microsoft has already established general strategies 
for obtaining control over e-commerce standards.
    These connections are the Microsoft Passport, .Net, and .Net My 
Services initiatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dominating the media player format so as to collect a vig on 
transactions would position Microsoft to collect transactions 
revenue that may well exceed revenues available from Windows 
software licenses alone--;even if Microsoft's dominance of the 
OS market is secure. As we discussed in Section III.A.4, monopolists 
of durable goods recognize that past sales constitute future 
competition (here, older versions of Windows compete with current 
and future versions of Windows). The monopolists face a competitive 
constraint against increasing prices even in the absence of any 
significant rivals. Such monopolies naturally seek ways to 
circumvent the constraint. In the case of Windows, the constraint is 
potentially circumvented by the collection of the rig on 
transactions.
    What is the link between dominance in operating systems, 
streaming media, digital rights management, e-commerce, and 
convergence? Microsoft ,,,,'ill attempt to use its dominance in any 
of these markets to increase the use of Microsoft-favored products 
in all of these markets. In contrast to the potential situation 
where different players are strong in each market, Microsoft will 
leverage its dominance in any market to strengthen its position in 
all of them. Microsoft's incentive e to do this lies in the many 
revenue streams that it currently forgoes. For example, Microsoft 
does not currently charge web sites for the use of Windows media 
formats. If Microsoft establishes dominance in the media player 
market, as it translates to dominance in e-commerce hosting, 
Microsoft will no longer have any constraint on fully exploiting 
this revenue stream. Once again, this links back to the original 
dominance in Microsoft's OS. All of these applications are mutually 
reinforcing and serve to preserve the monopoly power that accrues 
from packaging Microsoft's OS with complementary applications.
    C. The theorized benefits of product integration that may exist 
in some cases do not apply to the markets at issue in this case.
    As a theoretical matter, of course, in many transactions, 
purchasers would prefer to buy bundles of products and services. 
Purchasers of glass prefer to have borates included, drivers prefer 
to have steering wheels with their cars, and purchasers of shoes 
typically prefer to have laces included. The relevant question here 
is whether computer applications are similar to those 
examples--;i.e., whether browsers and other middleware such as 
streaming media players are ``mere inputs'' into the 
overall ``Windows experience.''
    The economics of software markets cast doubt on Microsoft's 
efficiency'' arguments

[[Page 28232]]

for integration of its own browser and media player with the OS.
    As discussed above, many forms of tying have no efficiency 
justification. Contractual provisions limiting the acceptance of 
rival technologies, or efforts to redesign code to harm 
rivals'' performance, create economic loss. As further 
discussed above, Microsoft has these forms of tying at its disposal, 
incentives to use them, and a historical record of using them.
    Microsoft's claims regarding the efficiencies of its contractual 
tying--;i.e., that it reduces consumer time costs and confusion 
to have a set of default options provided with a personal computer 
``out of the box''--;confuse the benefit to consumers 
of having a browser and its media player bundled along with the OS, 
with the benefit of having Microsoft's choice of applications 
bundled with the OS. The efficiencies that come with providing an 
integrated package of an OS and various applications are not 
specific to Microsoft's applications. In a market where OEMs were 
free to offer whichever packages of software consumers desired 
(e.g., Microsoft Windows with RealPlayer and IE, or Microsoft 
Windows with WMP and Netscape), the market would provide those 
varieties of packages preferred by consumers. The market would 
respond fully to the efficiencies associated with the purchase of a 
full package of hardware, OS, and software applications, and in 
addition, the market would be free to offer the variety that 
consumers demanded.
    Our analysis supports the hypothesis that Microsoft's tying of 
IE and WMP and its efforts to gain DRM dominance are not driven by 
efficiency concerns. Although selection of some defaults is 
necessary on each PC, there appear to be no engineering efficiencies 
to the integration of the choice of default into the OS. To the 
contrary, choice and market competition (and consequently, 
efficiency) suffer when knowledgeable OEMs (who act as informed 
agents of consumers) face artificial barriers to playing that role, 
such as when Microsoft commingles code or makes Microsoft 
applications difficult to permanently remove as default settings. By 
designing system software to hamper the installation or operation of 
rival software suppliers, Microsoft reinforces the applications 
barrier to entry; the impact is a strategic reduction in competition 
and a reinforcement of Microsoft's OS monopoly.
    Additionally, the usual arguments made to justify integration in 
other markets are largely inapplicable to software application 
markets. It is often argued that integration occurs (i) to reduce 
transaction, distribution or production costs, or (ii) to increase 
the value of the final product.
    The argument that transaction and assembly costs justify 
integration does not apply to major software applications. For 
example, consumers want to purchase some integrated packages of 
complementary products such as functioning automobiles because 
separate purchases of steering wheels, engines, dashboards, seats, 
etc. would impose enormous transaction and assembly costs. By 
contrast, software markets allow assembly at low cost even without 
integration, provided that monopolists are legally prohibited from 
impairing interoperability. With OEMs acting as purchasing and 
assembly agents for end-users, it is no more efficient for Microsoft 
to create OS-and-application bundles than for multiple OEMs (or 
third-parties who can then license such bundles to OEMs) to create 
those OS-and-application bundles desired by end-users.
    Forced integration of particular software brands does not 
increase value. Instead, it causes an efficiency cost to the extent 
that end-users value the product variety entailed in the variety of 
inputs. The value of variety is lost with integration. Steering 
wheels in cars are typically undifferentiated commodities that 
comprise a trivial portion of the value of the final product. Thus, 
even though a consumer could replace the steering wheel with limited 
effort, there is little reason to do so because a different steering 
wheel is unlikely to improve the performance of the overall product. 
By contrast, technological development in software applications 
markets means that different applications can differ substantially 
in what they deliver to consumers. Loss of product variety as a 
result of integration can be costly.
    (2) Contrary to Microsoft's claims, issues of pricing and 
innovation provide further evidence that Microsoft's tying harms the 
marketplace and consumers.
    Microsoft has argued that the extension of monopoly power across 
a set of complementary products may produce consumer benefits if the 
monopolist charges lower prices than would be charged if independent 
monopolists were to separately produce two or more complementary 
products. In the latter case, each independent monopolist would 
raise prices higher than the level that would maximize the combined 
profits of all the monopolists. Thus, according to this theory, 
consumers benefit from Microsoft's monopoly leveraging through lower 
prices.
    This theory imagines a static world in which innovation and 
entry are non-existent, and firms simply set prices to maximize 
profits, given unchanging demand and unchanging technology. The 
practical implications of the theory for the real world of rapidly 
changing technology and potential dynamic competition (as opposed to 
monopoly positions that are airtight) are minimal. In an economic 
theory that incorporates industry dynamics, strategies taken by a 
dominant firm to eliminate a firm in a complementary market remove a 
potential rival or entrant in the primary market. In the reality of 
software markets, this anti-competitive effect clearly overwhelms 
any theoretical, static price effect: innovation and dynamic 
competition thus are, and should be, the focus of the Microsoft 
case. The driver of consumer benefit in these markets is innovation: 
over the past ten years, while prices of applications have 
fluctuated only moderately, the performance of applications has gown 
dramatically. New applications, such as browsers and media players, 
have become important sources of consumer benefit, while 
improvements in existing applications such as financial software 
have yielded strong consumer benefits. In any analysis on the impact 
of tying, the most important question is the impact on innovation, 
not price. Tying harms innovation by preserving Microsoft's monopoly 
position, protecting it against dynamic competition to the detriment 
of consumers.
    Microsoft argues that a single monopolist over two products has 
greater incentives to innovate than two separate monopolists. If two 
complementary products are monopolized separately, the argument 
goes, each monopolist ignores the positive benefits that accrue to 
the other firm from an increase in its own pace of innovation. In 
the matter at hand, this theoretical efficiency would argue that if 
Microsoft had a monopoly in operating systems, while Novell had a 
monopoly in browsers, Novell would not innovate as much as possible 
because it would not take into consideration the positive effects of 
browser innovation on operating system demand. This reasoning also 
suggests that innovation in the industry would be enhanced if 
Microsoft's OS dominance were to be extended further into still more 
applications markets. The key point missed in this theory is that 
any extension of Microsoft's OS monopoly power would dampen 
innovation into substitutes for Microsoft's OS. Enhancing the 
applications barriers only reduces the incentive for any firm to 
engage in OS or applications innovation. If an application could be 
open to competition--;i.e., if it could be characterized by some 
rivalry or competition, as an alternative to Microsoft's 
integration--;then unrestrained competition would strengthen 
rather than weaken innovation. While Microsoft's dominance in the 
browser market today may be a fait accompli, untying the OS and 
media player will lead to such greater competition in media player 
innovation.
    Significantly for this case, untying would also increase 
competition in the operating system market. As discussed earlier in 
Section III.A, tying protects Microsoft's operating system dominance 
by maintaining the applications barrier to entry and weakening or 
deterring direct platform challenges. If there are separate 
monopolists in adjacent markets, each will have the incentive to 
enter or sponsor entry into the other's market, leading to 
competitive pressure in both markets.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\Of course, that monopolist competition will only 
occur if the first monopolist is not permitted to use anti- 
competitive tactics to foreclose the market for unintegrated rivals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    GVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, THE CONCLUSION IS THAT MICROSOFT HAS 
ENGAGED, AND IS ENGAGING, IN ANTI-COMPETITIVE TYING IN ORDER TO 
PROTECT AND STRENGTHEN ITS OPERATING SYSTEM MONOPOLY.
    A. Microsoft's options, incentives, and history create a strong 
presumption that Microsoft's tying harms OS competition and 
consumers.
    The District Court's Findings of Fact confirm that it is 
Microsoft's ``corporate practice to pressure other firms to 
halt software development that either shows the potential to weaken 
Microsoft's applications

[[Page 28233]]

barrier to entry or competes directly with Microsoft's most 
cherished software products.'' \19\ As a historical matter, 
Microsoft has clearly engaged in anti-competitive, inefficient tying 
with other applications. \20\For example, Microsoft has forbidden 
OEMs from changing system defaults so as to make non-Microsoft 
products the ``default application'' in ``out of the 
box'' packages.\21\ While Microsoft allows the 
``installation icons'' of competing applications to be 
installed on desktops ``out of the box,'' installation 
icons disappear if they are not invoked. In an even more subtle form 
of contractual tying, Microsoft requires applications that run with 
Windows to obtain a certification from Microsoft. This permits 
Microsoft to monitor and perhaps discipline its applications rivals. 
\22\ While some of these practices differ in form from strict tying 
(a certification requirement for software is not the same as a 
contractual requirement that OEMs use Microsoft products), the 
effect is similar in that Microsoft is signaling to all other market 
participants that applications may only run with Windows by 
Microsoft's permission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\See U.S. Findings of Fact 93.
    \20\Microsoft has a track record of placing code for 
Microsoft applications in the same files as code providing functions 
for its OS in order to achieve its anti-competitive ends. This 
includes the illegal commingling of code for Microsoft's Internet 
Explorer with the operating code and the tying of with the OS. See 
U.S. Findings of Fact 161-;229.
    \21\See U.S. Findings of Fact 357, relating 
to Microsoft's attempts through tying and other means to induce 
users to select Microsoft's Internet Explorer as the preferred, 
perhaps only, path to the web. It is possible for consumers to incur 
the cost to change defaults, but the incentives to do this are very 
small.
    \22\See Steven Vaughan Nichols, Resisting the Windows XP 
Message, ZDNet, May 9, 2001 (``I can't help but wonder if... 
independent software vendors will have trouble getting that all-
important signature for [their] programs .... [W]hy do I feel 
certain that giving Microsoft absolute power over all XP apps 
probably doesn't spell good news for anyone in the tech 
business--;except Microsoft?'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Microsoft's profit incentives dictate that Microsoft would tie 
its products together much more aggressively than efficiency alone 
would suggest. With regard to the question of the nature of 
competition in the media player market, one of the current objects 
of Microsoft's tying, and, in particular its tying of WMP, is clear: 
as the District Court determined, the ``multimedia stream 
[represents] strategic grounds that Microsoft [needs] to 
capture.''\23\ That--;and not efficiency--;is the 
driving force behind Microsoft's conduct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\--;,3 See U.S. Findings of Fact i 112.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    B. The evidence indicates that Microsoft is anti-competitively 
tying the browser and the media player with its operating system.
    In the absence of tying, Microsoft would provide an operating 
system and applications such as the browser and media player that 
were developed and offered in a modular, plug-replaceable fashion. 
The applications codes for the browser and the media player would 
not be commingled with the OS code, but would instead communicate 
with the OS through a set of well defined APIs. Publishing the APIs 
and interface protocols in this non-tying world would enhance the 
value of Microsoft's operating system by ncouraging competition in 
the innovation of the complementary good--;the browser and the 
media player. Greater competition and functional value in the market 
for a complementary good always benefit a firm by increasing the 
demand for its product. In the absence of anti-competitive 
incentives to reinforce barriers to entry, this strategy would 
maximize the profits that Microsoft obtains from its operating 
system. The fact that Microsoft does not engage in such a business 
strategy demonstrates, in the absence of evidence that tying is 
efficient, that Microsoft is motivated by anti-competitive'' 
incentives.
    Microsoft openly engages in contractual tying and basic 
technological integration. By developing and marketing Windows XP as 
an integrated package of operating system and popular applications, 
Microsoft directly ignored the findings of fact and law by U.S. 
courts.\24\ Microsoft's history makes it likely that Microsoft is 
also engaging in various forms of OEM coercion to raise 
rivals'' distribution costs and encourage the distribution of 
its own middleware products. Consistent with our analysis, this 
tying generally serves the purpose of Microsoft profitability and 
reinforcement of its OS dominance, rather than consumer benefit. 
Microsoft directly engages in anti-competitive tying when it 
prevents OEMs and end-users from removing or uninstalling IE and 
WMP. Microsoft does this through code commingling between the media 
player and the operating system that renders substitution for WMP 
difficult, or even impossible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\``In June ... seven appeals judges ruled 
unanimously that Microsoft was a monopoly that had violated the 
antitrust laws by integrating its Web browser into its Windows 
operating system in an effort to freeze out other browsers. [The 
Court of Appeals ruled that] Microsoft shouldn't be allowed to 
design Windows in a way that limits consumer choice--;the 
ability of users to discover and easily use other companies'' 
products and services. [Despite this,] the company went on to launch 
a new version of Windows--;Windows XP--;that continued to 
integrate tightly into the operating system new features that are 
crucial to extending Microsoft's monopoly onto the next 
battleground: Internet-based services. And it added these features 
in a way that hinders consumer choice.'' Walter S. Mossberg, 
For Microsoft. 2001 Was a Good Year, But At Consumers'' 
Expense, The Wall Street Journal, December 27, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



MTC-00028284--;0095

    Another example of anti-competitive tying is that Microsoft 
renders its own DRM technology software non-interoperable with other 
media players because of DRM's interaction with Window XP's own 
``secure audio path'' software. While this is not tying in 
the sense of designing the operating system to be incompatible with 
rival applications, it does involve designing an 
application--;DRM--;that limits the compatibility of rival 
applications in a closely related market, the market for media 
players.
    More generally, Microsoft anti-competitively undermines the 
functionality and utility of rival streaming media players and 
formats. For example, Microsoft denies a license for playing files 
streamed in Windows content encoding formats to its principal 
competitor, RealNetworks, thereby reducing the utility to consumers 
of RealNetworks'' products. Microsoft also disadvantages rival 
content-encoding formats by designing WMP to record only in Windows 
media formats. These actions have, in the past, served to reduce 
consumers'' perceptions of rivals'' performance--;for 
example by deliberately making consumers'' use of Netscape 
``a jolting experience'' \25\ or damaging MP3 quality and 
functionality.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\See U.S. Findings of Fact 160.
    \26\See Ted Bridis, Technology Industry Aims to Render 
MP3 Obsolete, The Wall Street Journal, Apr. 12, 2001, at A3. 
(``Under Microsoft's new restrictions ... MP3 music 
``sounds like somebody in a phone booth underwater,'' says 
P.J. McNealy, an analyst who researches Internet audio issues for 
Gartner Inc .... early testers of beta versions of Windows XP 
already complain that the most popular MP3 recording 
applications--;which compete with Microsoft's format--;don't 
seem to function properly, apparently because of changes Microsoft 
made to how data are written on CD-ROMs under Windows XP. Microsoft 
says that while other software vendors'' products may not be 
``optimized'' to run with Windows XP, those products 
should run acceptably with the operating system.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In general, OEMs perform a screening function, as agents of 
consumers, by ensuring that the software products provided out of 
the box are compatible with each other and with the operating 
system? Consumers are aware that OEMs perform this function. 
Consumers are also aware that OEMs'' reputations are based 
partly on packaging high- quality software products, so that OEMs 
have the incentive to choose the best software products for the 
price. Consumers are in general not aware of the contractual 
restrictions imposed in various contractual arrangements that might 
explain the choice of media player, including, for example, any 
threat not to license the Windows OS to the OEM unless all Windows 
applications are included as defaults. Nor are consumers aware of 
any financial incentives offered to OEMs by Microsoft to include 
only Microsoft applications as default options. Contractual tying 
alone will thus cause consumers to infer, for reasons unrelated to 
merit, that Microsoft's applications are the optimal products for 
them.
    As suggested above, the interaction of all these effects, 
combined with rational expectations, can easily lead to the rapid 
foreclosure of competition. The force of self- realizing 
expectations is especially strong when one firm or one format is a 
natural focal point for consumer expectations. In markets where any 
number of formats could be sustained as dominant because of self-
realizing expectations (economists term this ``the multiplicity 
of rational expectations equilibria''), a focal point property 
of any one equilibrium can be important in predicting which 
equilibrium will be sustained. There could hardly be a stronger 
focal point than the Microsoft/Windows format for predicting the 
likely dominant (and perhaps sole) format. The history of the PC 
software industry is one of the dominance of Microsoft

[[Page 28234]]

standards\27\ The prediction that the Microsoft standard will 
predominate in the media player market is natural, perhaps 
inescapable, for a consumer--;uninformed about the media player 
market specifically--;debating about which format to adopt. 
While it is arguable that strong network effects might yield 
dominance by a single firm in a good or service and its complements, 
it is uncertain whether a monopoly outcome is inevitable absent 
tying. In this context, tying assures OS dominance and is therefore 
anti-competitive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\This is similar to the screening function that 
upscale department stores provide in selecting high-quality 
products. Intermediaries in retail markets invest in establishing 
brand names or trust on the part of consumers. :s See U.S. Findings 
of Fact 33--;35, 53, 60, and 62-;64.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, Microsoft's coercion of OEMs to select WMP for the 
``out-of-the-box'' experience, and to obscure the 
differences in capabilities between WMP and rival products, could 
weaken consumer awareness of the various functionalities available 
in the open market.
    This would increase expectations of a single dominant format, 
which in turn would accelerate that dominance. The dominance in the 
media player market, to emphasize the applications-OS interaction 
once more, reinforces Microsoft's dominance in operating systems.
    CONCLUSION
    We show in this report that Microsoft has substantial incentives 
to engage in ant/- competitive tying of its middleware products with 
Windows. It has incentives to use contractual inducements to OEMs to 
bundle Windows with its own middleware instead of rival products; 
commingle applications code into the kernel of the operating system; 
and hamper the interoperability of rival applications. We also show 
that Microsoft's tying--;in all of its forms--;reinforces 
Microsoft's monopoly in operating systems.
    Microsoft's incentives to anti-competitively bundle fall into 
four mutually reinforcing categories. First, by tying its middleware 
applications to the Windows operating system, Microsoft can 
strengthen the applications barrier to entry against its OS 
competitors. This reinforces Microsoft's OS monopoly. In order for 
entrants in the operating system market to succeed, they must have a 
wide variety of applications available for consumers to purchase. 
But software developers will invest in the creation of new 
applications only for operating systems that have widespread 
distribution. If Microsoft attains dominance with both the operating 
system and key middleware applications, it can ensure that its OS 
rivals will be unable to meet consumer demands for the most popular 
applications. With a dominant position in applications markets, 
Microsoft may choose not to write those applications to interoperate 
with rival operating systems, thus enhancing the already significant 
applications barrier to entry.
    Second, tying reinforces Microsoft's OS monopoly by deterring 
direct challenges to the OS position as the platform of choice for 
software developers. Since programmers can write calls to middleware 
products, Microsoft's dominance in these products reduces the 
possibility that a universal translator (middleware) between 
operating systems and applications would threaten the Windows 
monopoly. Just as with the browser, Microsoft weakens this 
competitive threat to operating systems by integrating the potential 
substitutes directly into the OS.
    Third, tying can provide a method of dynamic leveraging to 
ensure a future monopoly. This involves a direct counterargument to 
the familiar ``one-monopoly theory,'' which states that a 
monopolist cannot collect more profits through a monopoly on a pair 
of complementary products (an operating system and an application) 
than through a monopoly on either product alone. Where the future 
entry into each product is uncertain, establishing a monopoly on 
both products in the pair increases the chance that the monopolist 
will retain a monopoly on at least one product in the future and 
therefore is positioned to collect full monopoly profits. In our 
context, the fact that the Windows monopoly over operating systems 
is not airtight creates an incentive for Microsoft to leverage its 
dominance so as to increase the likelihood of future dominance in at 
least one class of products--;the operating system or 
applications. Dominance in applications provides (partial) insurance 
against the loss of monopoly power in operating systems, but the key 
is the preservation of monopoly in at least one of the pair of 
products: the OS and one or more important middleware applications.
    Finally, tying IE and WMP into the OS and locking in Microsoft's 
streaming media and DRM formats put Microsoft in a position to 
potentially collect a tax on e-commerce transactions. Tying thus 
facilitates the move by Microsoft to a business strategy of 
collecting revenues from per-transaction royalty of its software, 
rather than outright sale of its software. This business strategy 
lessens the competition that Microsoft, as a durable-good 
monopolist, faces from the sales of its own previous versions of 
Windows. In this sense, the strategy, and its facilitation through 
tying, reinforce Microsoft's dominance in operating systems.
    Product integration can theoretically be beneficial in some 
markets. Purchasers prefer to purchase some bundles of inputs, such 
as steering wheels with cars or laces with shoes.
    These efficiencies do not apply to the bundling of middleware 
with Windows. Purchasing a personal computer with a full set of 
applications and default options ``out of the box'' is 
valuable for many consumers. But the efficiencies that come with an 
integrated package of an OS and various applications are not 
specific to Microsoft's applications. In a market where OEMs were 
free to offer whichever packages of software consumers desired, 
without integration of applications into the operating system, and 
without Microsoft's tying constraints or inducements, the market 
would provide the variety of packages preferred by consumers. 
Moreover, the engineering efficiencies claimed for the integration 
of middleware code into the operating system appear to be 
negligible, and are therefore more than offset by the anti-
competitive effects of tying. In fact, a software design organized 
around modular programming of the operating system and middleware 
applications would achieve the efficiencies associated with modular 
programming and would allow for plug-and-play replacement of the 
software.
    In the absence of tying, Microsoft would offer an operating 
system and middleware applications that were distinct in the sense 
of modular programming. For example, neither browser nor media 
player code would be commingled with OS code: instead, both would 
communicate with the OS only through a set of published APIs. 
Microsoft would enhance the value of its operating system by 
encouraging competition in the innovation of the complementary 
good--;i.e., the browser and the media player. This strategy 
would maximize value to consumers and the profits that Microsoft 
obtains from its operating system. The fact that Microsoft does not 
engage in such a business strategy demonstrates, in the absence of 
evidence that its tying is efficient, that Microsoft is motivated by 
anti-competitive incentives that maintain its OS monopoly.



MTC-00028284--;0100

    VI. APPENDIX: CURRICULUM VITAE OF FRANK MATHEWSON
    G. FRANKLIN MATHEWSON--;Professor of Economics, Director of 
the Institute for Policy Analysis, University of Toronto
    Ph.D. Stanford University
    B.Com. University of Toronto
    ACADEMIC POSITIONS
    1996-present Director, Institute for Policy Analysis, University 
of Toronto.
    1969-present Professor of Economics, Department of Economics, 
University of Toronto.
    1969-present Research Associate, Institute for Policy Analysis, 
University of Toronto.
    1995-;1996 Acting Chair, Department of Economics, 
University of Toronto.
    1985 Visiting Professor, Center for the Study of the Economy and 
the State, University of Chicago, Spring Quarter.
    1984 Visiting Scholar, Graduate School of Business, University 
of Chicago, Spring Quarter.
    1978-;1983 Associate Chairman and Director of Graduate 
Studies, Department of Economics, University of Toronto.
    1970-;1982 Professor of Economics, Faculty of Management 
Studies, University of Toronto.
    1978-;1979 Senior Research Associate, Ontario Economic 
Council.
    1976-;1977 Visiting Research Fellow, Department of 
Political Economy, University College, University of London.
    HONORS AND FELLOWSHIPS
    * Social Science and Humanities Research Council Research 
Fellowship: 1994, 1991, 1989, 1987, 1986, 1985
    * Social Science and Humanities Research Council Leave 
Fellowship: 1983-;1984
    * Canadian Council Leave Fellowship: 1976--;1977
    * Canada Council Doctoral Fellowship: 1966-;1969
    * Woodrow Wilson Fellowship: 1965
    PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
    * Editorial Board, Journal of Economics of Business, 1992-
present.

[[Page 28235]]

    * Editorial Board, Managerial and Decision Economics, 1994-
present.
    * Editorial Board, Economic Inquiry, 1987-;1997.
    * Editorial Board, Journal of Industrial Economics, 
1990-;1995.
    * Associate Editor, International Journal of Industrial 
Organization, 1982-;1988.
    Co-editor with M. Trebilcock and M. Walker. The Law and 
Economics of Competition
    Policy, Vancouver: The Fraser Institute, 1990.
    Co-editor with J. Stiglitz. New Developments in the Analysis of 
Market Structures, Cambridge: MIT Press, 1985.
    Program Committee, European Association for Research in 
Industrial Economics, 1983-1991.
    Program Committee, Conference on Industrial Organization, 
International Economics Association, 1982.
    PUBLICATIONS
    ``The Analysis of Efficiencies in Superior Propane: Correct 
Criterion Incorrectly Applied.'' With Ralph Winter. Canadian 
Competition Record, Fall 2000, 20(2): 88-;97.
    ``Professional Corporations and Limited Liability.'' 
With Michael Smart, in Peter Newman (ed.)
    Palgrave Dictionary in Economics and the Law, 140-;143 
London: MacMillan Reference Limited, 1999.
    ``Law Firms.'' With Jack Carr, in Peter Newman (ed.) 
Palgrave Dictionary in Economics and the Law, 497-;500, London: 
MacMillan Reference Limited, 1998 ``Canadian Bank Mergers: 
Efficiency and Consumer Gain versus Market Power'' With Neil 
Quigley CD Howe Institute, Occasional Paper, No. 108, June 1998.
    ``To Merge or not to Merge: Is that the Question?.'' 
With Neil Quigely. CD Howe Institute. Occasional Paper, No. 108, 
1998.
    ``The Lax,,, and Economics of Resale Price 
Maintenance.'' With Ralph Winter. Review of Industrial 
Organization, 13:1-;2, 57-;84, April 1998.
    ``What's Essential, What's Prudential, What Can Competition 
Provide?'' With Neil Quigley. Canadian Competition Record 18:2, 
11-;28, 1997.
    ``Reforming the Bank Act: Regulation, Public Policy, and 
the Market'' With Nell Quigley. Canadian Business Law Journal 
29:1, 1-;16, 1997.
    ``Ensuring Competition: Bank Distribution of Insurance 
Products: Prospects and Implications for Canada.'' With 
Ignatious Horstmann and Nell Quigley. Toronto: CD Howe Institute, 
1996.
    ``Buyer Groups and Exclusivity: Towards a Theory of Managed 
Competition.'' With Ralph Winter. International Journal of 
Industrial Organization 15:2, 137-;164, 1997. (Presented at the 
EARIE Conference, Tel Aviv, Israel, 1993.)
    ``Tying As a Response to Demand Uncertainty.'' With 
Ralph Winter. The RAND Journal of Economics 28:3,566-;583, 
1997. (Presented at the EARLE Conference, Lisbon, Portugal, 1990.)
    ``ility in the Absence of Deposit Insurance: The Canadian 
Banking System 1890-;1966.'' With Jack Cart and Neil 
Quigley. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking 27:4, 1137-;1158, 
1995.
    ``Ensuring Failure.'' With Jack Can'' and Neil 
Quigley. Toronto: CD Howe Institute, 1994.
    ``Territorial Rights in Franchise Contracts.'' With 
Ralph Winter. Economic Inquiry 32:2, 181- 192, 1994. (Presented at 
the EARLE Conference, Budapest, Hungary, 1989.)
    ``Reply to R. Gilson.'' With Jack Can''. Journal 
of Political Economy 99:2,426-;428, 1991.
    ``The Economics of Law Firms: A Study in the Legal 
Organization of the Firm.'' With Jack Carr. Journal of Law and 
Economics 33:2, 307-;330, 1990. ``The Economic Effects of 
Automobile Dealer Regulation.'' With Ralph Winter. Annales 
d'Economie et de Statistique 15/16, 409- 426, Juillet-Decembre 1989.
    ``Unlimited Liability and Free Banking in Scotland: A 
Note.'' With Jack Carr and S. Glied. Journal of Economic 
History 49:4, 974-;978, 1989.
    ``Vertical Restraints and the Law: A Reply.'' With 
Ralph Winter. RAND Journal of Economics, 19:2, 298-;301, Summer 
1988.
    ``Unlimited Liability as a Barrier to Entry.'' With 
Jack Cart. Journal of Political Economy 96:4, 766-;784, August 
1988.
    ``Is Exclusive Dealing Anti-Competitive?'' With Ralph 
Winter. American Economic Review 77:5, 1057-;1062, December 
1987.
    ``Advertising and Consumer Learning.'' With Y. 
Kotowitz in FTC Conference Volume, Consumer Protection Economics, 
1986. (Paper presented at the FTC Conference on Advertising, 
Washington, 1984.)
    ``Competition Policy and Vertical Exchange.'' With 
Ralph Winter. Royal Commission on the Economic Union and Development 
Prospects for Canada, University of Toronto Press, 1985.
    ``The Economics of Franchise Contracts.'' With Ralph 
Winter. Journal of Law and Economics 3, 503-;526, October 1985. 
(Paper presented at the EARLE Conference, Fontainebleau, 1984.)
    ``The Economics of Life Insurance Regulation: Valuation 
Constraints.'' With Ralph Winter in J. Finsinger and M. Pauly 
(eds.), The Economics of Insurance Regulation, MacMillan and Company 
Limited, 1986. (Paper presented at IIM Conference on Regulation in 
Insurance Markets, Berlin, 1984.)
    ``The Economics of Vertical Restraints in 
Distribution.'' With Ralph Winter in J. Stiglitz and G.F. 
Mathewson (eds.), New Developments in the Analysis of Market 
Structure, MIT Press, 1986.
    ``An Economic Theory of Vertical Restraints.'' With 
Ralph Winter. RAND Journal of Economics 15:1, 27-;38, Spring 
1984. (Reprinted in The Economics of Marketing, Cheltenham, UK: 
Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 1998.)
    ``Information, Search and Price Variability of Individual 
Life Insurance Contracts.'' Journal of Industrial Economics 
32:2, 131-;148, December 1983. (Paper presented at the Canadian 
Economics Association Meetings, Montreal, 1980.)
    ``The Incentives for Resale Price Maintenance.'' With 
Ralph Winter. Economic Inquiry 21:3, 337-;348, July 1983. 
(Paper presented at the Western Economic Association Meetings, San 
Francisco, 1981 .)
    ``Vertical Integration by Contractual Restraints in Spatial 
Markets.'' With Ralph Winter. Journal of Business 56:4, 
497-;518, October 1983.
    ``Entry, Size Distribution, Scale, and Scope Economies in 
the Life Insurance Industry.'' With S. Kellner. Journal of 
Business 56:1, 25--;-44, January 1983.
    ``Regulation of Canadian Markets for Life Insurance.'' 
With Ralph Winter. Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, 
Government of Canada, 1983.
    ``The Rationale for Government Regulation of Quality'' 
and ``Policy Alternatives in Quality Regulation.'' With D. 
Dewees and M. Trebilcock. ``Markets for Insurance: A Selective 
Survey of Economic Issues,'' in D. Dewees (ed.), The Regulation 
of Quality, Toronto: Butterworths, 1983.
    ``An Economic Theory of Union-Controlled Finns.'' With 
Y. Kotowitz. Economica 49:196, 421-433, November 1982. (Paper 
presented at the Canadian Economics Association Meetings, Quebec 
City, 1978.)
    ``Advertising, Consumer Information and Product 
Quality.'' With Y. Kotowitz. Bell Journal of Economics 10:2, 
566-;588, Fall 1979. (Paper presented at the European 
Econometric Society Meetings, Geneva, 1978.)
    ``Informative Advertising and Welfare.'' With Y. 
Kotowitz. American Economic Review 69:3, 284-;294, June 1979.
    ``Information, Entry and Regulation in Markets for Life 
Insurance.'' Ontario Economic Council Research Studies, 
University of Toronto Press, 1982.
    ``Some Issues on Public Advertising.'' With Y. 
Kotowitz. Journal of Contemporary Business 7:4, 123-;124, 1979.
    ``Economics of Fiscal Transfer Pricing in Multinational 
Corporations.'' With G.D. Quirin. Ontario Economic Council 
Research Studies, University of Toronto Press, 1978.
    ``The Residential Demand for Electrical Energy and Natural 
Gas: A Model Estimated for Canada.'' With R. Hyndman and Y. 
Kotowitz in W.T. Ziemba et al. (eds.), Energy, Policy Modelling: 
United States and Canadian Experiences, Martinus Nijhoff Press, 
86-;102, 1980. (Paper presented at the Canadian Energy Policy 
Modelling Conference, Vancouver, 1978.) ``Economies of Scale in 
Financial Institutions: Reply.'' With P. Halpern. Journal of 
Monetary Economics 3, 127-;131, 1977.
    ``The Benefits and Costs of Rate of Return 
Regulation.'' With J. Callen and H. Mohring. American Economic 
Review 66:5,290-;297, June 1976.
    ``Economies of Scale in Financial Institutions: A General 
Model Applied to Insurance.'' With P. Halpern. Journal of 
Monetary Economics 1:2,203-;220, April 1975.
    ``Price Effects of Market Power in the Canadian Newspaper 
Industry: Reply.'' Canadian Journal of Economics 7:1, 
130-;132, February 1974.
    Cents and Nonsense: The Economics of Canadian Policy Issues. 
With J. Carr and J. McManus. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1972.
    ``Metering Costs and Marginal Cost Pricing in Public 
Utilities.'' With G.D. Quirin. Bell Journal of Economics 
3:1,335-;339, May 1972.

[[Page 28236]]

    ``A Note on the Price Effects of Market Power in the 
Canadian Newspaper Industry.'' Canadian--; Journal of 
Economics 5:2, 298-;301, May 1972.
    ``A Consumer Theory of Demand for the Media.'' Journal 
of Business 45:2, 212-;224, April 1972.
    VII. APPENDIX: CURRICULUM VITAE OF RALPH WINTER
    RALPH A. WINTER--; Professor of Economics and Finance, 
University of Toronto
    Ph.D. Economics, University of California at Berkeley
    M.A. Statistics, University of California at Berkeley
    B.Sc. Mathematics and Economics (with honors), University of 
British Columbia
    ACADEMIC POSITIONS
    1988-present Professor of Economics and Finance, University of 
Toronto
    1985-;1988 Associate Professor, Department of Economics and 
Faculty of Management Studies, University of Toronto
    1979-;1985 Assistant Professor, Department of Economics and 
Faculty of Management Studies, University of Toronto
    HONORS AND FELLOWSHIPS
    * Olin Senior Research Fellowship, Yale Law School, i 988
    * National Fellowship, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, 
1986-;1987 Harry, Johnson Prize (with M. Peters), for best 
article in the Canadian Journal of Economics, 1983
    * Canada Council Doctoral Fellowship, 1975-;1979
    * John H. Wheeler Scholarship, University of California at 
Berkeley, 1974-;1975
    * Dean's Honors List, University of British Columbia, 1974
    RESEARCH GRANTS
    * Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council Research 
Grant: 1983-;1985, 1986-1987, 1988-;1989, 1990, 
1991-;1993
    Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council Post-Doctoral 
Research Fellowship: 1981-;1982 and 1982-;1983
    PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
    * International Editorial Board, Assurances
    * Editorial Board, Journal of Industrial Economics
    PROFESSIONAL APPEARANCES
    * British Columbia Utilities Commission, regarding capital 
structure and equity risk premium for Pacific Northern Gas, 1998
    Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, 
regarding price cap regulation for telephone companies, 1996
    Alberta Energy and Utilities Board, regarding fair rate of 
return for TransAlta Utilities Corporation and Alberta Power 
Limited, 1996
    * Expert witness, Nielsen case, before the Canadian Competition 
Tribunal, 1994
    Ontario Energy Board (EBRO 483,484), regarding fair rate of 
return for Centra Gas, 1993 (written submission)
    Ontario Energy Board (EBRO 4790), regarding fair rate of return 
for Consumers Gas, 1992
    Expert witness, Chrysler case, before the Canadian Competition 
Tribunal, 1988
    PUBLICATIONS
    ``Efficiency as a Goal of Competition Policy,'' in 
Canadian Competition Policy: Preparing for the Future, forthcoming, 
2002.
    ``Efficiency Analysis in Superior Propane: Correct 
Criterion Incorrectly Applied,'' forthcoming, Canadian 
Competition Record, 2001, with G.F. Mathewson.
    The Law and Economics of Canadian Competition Policy, 
forthcoming 2001, with M.J. Trebilcock, E. Iacobucci, and P. 
Collins, University of Toronto Press.
    ``Remarks on Recent Developments in Canadian Competition 
Policy,'' in Critical Issues in
    Mergers and Acquisitions, Queen's Annual Business Law Symposium, 
2000, 59-;67.
    ``The State of Efficiencies in Canadian Competition 
Policy,'' Canadian Competition Record, Winter 2000, pp. 
106-;114, with M.J. Trebilcock.
    ``Optimal Insurance under Moral Hazard,'' in Handbook 
of Insurance, G. Dionne, editor, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000. 
pp. 155-;186.
    ``Substantial lessening of Competition in Canadian 
Competition Law'', in Competition Law for the 21st Century, 
Canadian Bar Association 1998.
    ``Resale Price Maintenance and the Canadian Competition 
Act'', Review of Industrial Organization, 1998.
    ``Colluding on Relative Prices'', Rand Journal of 
Economics Vol. 28, No.2, (Summer 1997): 359-;372.
    ``Tying as a Response to Demand Uncertainty'', Rand 
Journal of Economics Autumn 1997 (with Frank Mathewson).
    ``Exclusivity Restrictions and Intellectual Property'' 
in Competition Policy and Intellectual Policy, Anderson and Gallini, 
eds. 1998 (with Patrick Rey).
    ``Buying Groups and Exclusivity: Towards a Theory of 
Managed Competition'' (with GF Mathewson): International 
Journal of Industrial Organization, 1997.
    ``The Economics of Liability for Nuclear Accidents'' 
(with M.J. Trebilcock), International Review of Law and Economics, 
1997.
    ``Output Shares in Bilateral Agency Problems'', with 
H. Neary, Journal of Economic Theory 1995.
    ``The Dynamics of Competitive Insurance Markets'', 
Journal of Financial Intermediation (1994), 379-;415.
    ``Territorial Restrictions in Franchise Contracts'', 
with G.F. Mathewson, Economic Inquiry, 1994.
    ``Vertical Control and Price versus Non-Price 
Competition,'' Quarterly Journal of Economics, CVIII(1), 
February 1993: 61-;78.
    ``Moral Hazard in Insurance Contracts'', in G.Dionne, 
Ed., Insurance Economics, 1992.
    ``The Liability Insurance Market,'' Journal of 
Economics Perspectives, Summer 1991: 115-;136.
    ``Solvency Regulation and the Insurance Cycle,'' 
Economic Inquiry, XXIX(3), July 1991: 458- 472.
    ``The Law and Economics of Vertical Restraints,'' in 
M. Trebilcock, ed., Competition Policy in Canada, Vancouver: The 
Fraser Institute, 1990. With G.F. Mathewson.
    ``The Economic Effects of Automobile Dealer 
Regulation,'' Annales d'Economie et de Statistique, 15/16, 
Juillet-Decembre 1989: 409-;426. With G.F. Mathewson.
    ``Vertical Restraints and the Lax,,,: A Reply,'' Rand 
Journal of Economics, 19(2), Summer 1988: 298-;301. With G.F. 
Mathewson.
    ``The Liability Crisis and the Dynamics of Competitive 
Insurance Markets,'' Yale Journal on Regulation, 1988: 
455-;500.
    ``Currency Options, Forward Markets and the Hedging of 
Foreign Exchange Risk,'' Journal of International Economics, 
25, 1988: 291-;302. With R. Ware.
    ``The Competitive Effects of Vertical Agreements: 
Comment,'' American Economic Reviev, 77(5), December 1987: 
1057-;1062. With G.F. Mathewson.
    ``The Role of Options in the Resolution of Agency Problems: 
Comment,'' Journal of Finance, December 1986: 1157-;1174. 
With R. Farmer.
    ``R&D with Observable Outcomes,'' Journal of 
Economic Theory, December 1986: 1336-;1351. With M. Peters.
    ``Public Pricing Under Imperfect Competition,'' 
International Journal of Industrial Organization, 4 (1), March 1986: 
87-;100. With R. Ware.
    ``The Economics of Life Insurance Regulation: Valuation 
Constraints,'' in J.Finsinger and M. Pauley (eds.), The 
Economics of Insurance Regulation, MacMillan and Company Limited, 
1986.
    With G.F. Mathewson.
    Review of Blair and Kaserman's'' Law and Economics of 
Vertical Control'', Journal of Economic Literature, 1986.
    Competition Policy and the Economics of Vertical Exchange, book 
published by The Royal Commission on Canada's Economic Prospects, 
1986, 167pp. (with G.F. Mathewson).
    ``The Economics of Franchise Contracts,'' Journal of 
Law and Economics, October 1985: 503- 526. With G.F. Mathewson.
    ``Licensing in the Theory of Innovation,'' Rand 
Journal of Economics, Summer 1985: 237-;253. With N.T. Gallini.
    ``The Economics of Vertical Restraints on 
Distribution,'' in G.F. Mathewson and J.E. Stiglitz (eds.), New 
Developments in the Analysis of Market Structure, MIT Press, 1985. 
With G.F. Mathewson.
    ``An Economic Theory of Vertical Restraints,'' The 
Rand Journal of Economics, 1 (1), Spring 1984: 27-;38. With 
G.F. Mathewson.
    Regulation of Canadian Markets for Life Insurance, Consumer and 
Corporate Affairs, Ottawa, 1984. (With G.F. Mathewson, T. Cussman 
and C. Campbell).
    ``The Incentives for Resale Price Maintenance under 
Imperfect Information,'' Economic Inquiry, XXXI(3), June 1983: 
337-;348. With G.F. Mathewson.
    ``Market Equilibrium and the Resolution of 
Uncertainty,'' Canadian Journal of Economics, XVI(3), August 
1983: 381-;390. With M. Peters.
    ``Vertical Integration by Contractual Restraints in Spatial 
Markets,'' Journal of Business, 56(4), October 1983: 
497-;519. With G.F. Mathewson.
    ``Vertical Control in Monopolistic Competition,'' 
International Journal of Industrial Organization, 1(3), 1983: 
275-;286. With N.T. Gallini.

[[Page 28237]]

    ``On the Choice of an Index for Disclosure in the Life 
Insurance Market: An Axiomatic Approach,'' Journal of Risk and 
Insurance, XLIX(4), December 1982: 513-;549.
    ``An Alternative Test of the Capital Asset Pricing Model: 
Comment'', American Economic Review, Vol. 72, No. 5, December 
1982:1194-;96. (With S.M. Turnbull).
    ``Majority Voting and the Objective Function of the Firm 
under Uncertainty: Note,'' Bell Journal of Economics, 12(1), 
Spring 1981: 335-;337.
    ``On the Rate Structure of the American Life Insurance 
Industry'', Journal of Finance, Vol. 36, No. 1, March 1981: 
81-;97.
    ATTACHMENT B
    A DETAILED CRITIQUE OF THE PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT IN U.S. v. 
MICROSOFT
    Ronald A. Klain
    Benjamin G. Bradshaw
    Jessica Davidson Miller
    O'Melveny & Myers LLP
    555 13th Street, NW
    Washington, DC 20004
    January 2002
INTRODUCTION--;1
SECTION-BY-SECTION CRITIQUE OF THE PFJ--;2
Section III of the PFJ: Prohibited Conduct --;2
Section IV Of The PFJ: Compliance and Enforcement--;11
    Section V Of The PFJ: Termination--;12
    Section VI Of The PFJ: Definitions--;12
    INTRODUCTION
    This Court may approve the parties'' Proposed Final 
Judgment (``PFJ''), but only if it first determines that 
the proposed decree is ``in the public interest.'' In 
reviewing the PFJ, we acknowledge that there are some beneficial and 
important restrictions put on Microsoft's unlawful conduct. In too 
many instances, however, these restraints are inevitably swallowed 
up by broad exceptions and grants of power to Microsoft. The result 
is that the proposed settlement will do little, if anything, to 
eliminate Microsoft's illegal practices, prevent recurrence of those 
acts, and promote competition in the marketplace. The public 
interest requires more, and the Court should thus reject the 
proposed settlement.
    The purpose of this document is to expose--;on a point-by-
point, provision-by- provision basis--;the many loopholes, 
``trap doors,'' and other critical deficiencies in the 
PFJ. We present the issues in an order that tracks the proposed 
decree itself so that they may be easily followed. We also provide 
``real world'' examples where helpful. In general, the PFJ 
suffers from several global, overarching flaws. First, in critical 
places, the language used in the PFJ to define the protections for 
competition are not broad enough to cover behavior the Court of 
Appeals held to be unlawful. Rather, only specific rights are 
granted, only specific competitive products are protected, and only 
specific anticompetitive practices are banned. In many cases, the 
rights and limitations are further clawed-back through carefully 
crafted carve-outs that benefit Microsoft.
    Second, the proposed decree relies too heavily on the personal 
computer (``PC'') manufacturers (original equipment 
manufacturers or ``OEMs'') to implement design 
changes--;particularly in the critical area of 
middleware--;without sufficiently ensuring their independence 
from Microsoft's tight clasp. The PFJ also follows timelines that 
are too loose and too generous to a company with the engineering 
resources and product-. update capabilities of Microsoft.
    Third, in too many places, the constraints on Microsoft (once 
the exceptions are taken into account) devolve into a mandate that 
Microsoft act ``reasonably.'' Aside from the obvious 
concern about Microsoft's willingness to do so given its track 
record, this formulation is problematic for other reasons. 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, 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.
    In sum, a consent decree that causes little or no change in the 
defendant's behavior cannot be found to advance the public interest, 
especially when the defendant's conduct has been found by both the 
district and appellate courts to be in violation of the law. As 
such, based on the numerous shortcomings outlined below, the Court 
should disapprove the PFJ.
    SECTION-BY-SECTION CRITIQUE OF THE PFJ
    Section Ill of the PFJ: Prohibited Conduct
    A. Retaliation
    The Scope Of The Protection Is Narrow: Section III.A of the PFJ 
appears to be directed at preventing Microsoft from retaliating 
against OEMs that attempt to compete with Microsoft products, but 
Microsoft is constrained only from specified forms of retaliation. 
If it retaliates against an OEM for any non- specified reason, that 
retaliation is not prohibited. This formulation is particularly 
problematic because the protected OEM activities are narrowly and 
specifically defined. Retaliation against an OEM for installing a 
non-Microsoft application that does not meet the middleware 
definition is not prohibited; nor is retaliation against an OEM for 
removing a Microsoft application that does not meet the middleware 
definition.
    For example:
    MSN and MSN Messenger do not appear to be middleware under the 
PFJ's highly specific definition of a ``Microsoft Middleware 
Product.'' Given this uncertainty, an OEM cannot know with 
confidence that it is protected from retaliation if it removes the 
icon and start menu promotion for MSN and/or MSN Messenger.
    If client software to support Sun's Liberty Alliance (a 
competitor to Microsoft's Passport) were developed, it would 
probably not be middleware under the PFJ definition. Thus, Microsoft 
can retaliate if an OEM adds that software.
    More generally, it is odd to have a formulation that de facto 
approves of Microsoft's retaliation against OEMs, except where that 
retaliation is forbidden. That is, given that competitors to 
Passport, .Net My Services (formerly ``known as Hailstorm), 
Windows Movie Maker, Microsoft Money, gaming programs, and Microsoft 
Digital Photography programs--;even when shipped through the OEM 
channel--;may not be included in the scope of protected 
competition, Microsoft would be free to retaliate against OEMs that 
promote those competitors.
    Finally, the provision is substantially weakened in that only 
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. In order to eliminate Microsoft's ability to 
unlawfully protect its OS monopoly, it is essential that Microsoft 
be prohibited from taking any action that directly or indirectly 
adversely affects OEMs or other licensees who in any way support or 
promote non-Microsoft products or services.
    Non-Monetary Compensation Provision: Microsoft is free to 
retaliate against OEMs that promote competition by withholding any 
existing form of ``non- monetary Compensation''- only 
``newly introduced forms of non-monetary Consideration'' 
may not be withheld.
    OEM Termination Clause Will Intimidate OEMs: Microsoft can 
terminate, without notice, an OEM's Windows license, after sending 
the OEM two notices that it believes the licensee is violating its 
license. There need not be any adjudication or determination by any 
independent tribunal that Microsoft's two predicate claims are 
correct; after just two notices to any OEM of a putative violation, 
Microsoft may terminate without even giving notice. This provision 
means that the OEMs are, at any time, just two registered letters 
away from an unannounced economic calamity. Obviously, that danger 
will severely limit the willingness of the OEMs to promote products 
that compete with Microsoft.
    Pricing Schemes Will Allow Microsoft to Avoid Effects of the 
Decree.'' Microsoft can price Windows at a high price, and then 
put economic pressure on the OEMs to use only Microsoft applications 
through the provision that Microsoft can provide unlimited 
consideration to OEMs for distributing or promoting Microsoft's 
services or products. The limitation that these payments must be 
``commensurate with the absolute level or amount of'' OEM 
expenditures is hollow--;given that it is not clear how an OEM's 
costs will be accounted for, for this purpose.
    Pricing
    Microsoft Can Use Rebates To Eviscerate Competition. Under 
Section III.B of the PFJ, Microsoft can provide unlimited 
``market development allowances, programs, or other discounts 
in connection with Windows Operating System Products.'' This 
provision severely weakens the protection for OEM choice, 
functioning the same way as the rebate provision discussed above, 
but without any tether or limiting principle whatsoever. Arguably, 
Microsoft can charge $150 per copy of Windows, but then provide a 
$99 ``market development allowance'' for OEMs that install 
WMP.

[[Page 28238]]

    Presumably, this is intended to be circumscribed by Section 
III.B.3.c, which provides that ``discounts or their 
award'' shall not be ``based on or impose any criterion or 
requirement that is other, vise inconsistent with.., this Final 
Judgment,'' but this circular and self-referential provision 
does not ensure that the practice identified above is prohibited. 
While Microsoft should be allowed to engage in legitimate pricing 
decisions, those decisions should be limited to volume-based 
discounts offered on a non-discriminatory basis.
    C. OEM Licenses
    Microsoft Retains Control Of Desktop Innovation: Under Section 
III.C of the PFJ, Microsoft would retain control of desktop 
innovation by being able to prohibit OEMs 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 OEMs from doing the same. This turns the premise that 
OEMs be given flexibility to differentiate their products on its 
head.
    For example:
    Sony--;as a PC OEM 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 so 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 OEMs 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 IAPs Only, And Only For The OEM's 
``Own'' IAP: OEMs are allowed to offer IAP promotions at 
the end of the boot sequence, but not promotions for other products. 
Also, OEMs are allowed to offer IAPs at the end of a boot sequence, 
but only their ``own'' IAP offers. Given that this phrase 
is ambiguous, Microsoft may attempt to read this provision as 
limiting an OEM's right to offer an IAP product to those IAPs 
marketed under the OEM's brand. Helpfully, the Competitive Impact 
Statement suggests otherwise, but whatever this phrase means, it is 
a needless restriction on an OEM's flexibility.
    D. API Disclosure
    APIs Defined Too Narrowly: Microsoft can evade the disclosure 
obligation provided under Section III.D of the PFJ by ``hard-
wiring'' links to its applications, and through other predatory 
coding schemes. Additionally, the disclosure is limited to 
``APIs and related Documentation.'' This is 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.
    G. Anticompetitive Agreements
    Joint Development Agreements Can Subvert Protections Of The 
Settlement. The protection against anticompetitive agreements is 
substantially undermined by the exception in Section III.G of the 
PFJ that allows Microsoft to launch ``joint development or 
joint services arrangements'' with OEMs and others. Under this 
provision, Microsoft can ``invite'' OEMs, ISVs, and other 
industry players to enter into ``joint development'' 
agreements and then resort to an array of exclusionary practices.
    For example:
    Microsoft invites OEM X to form a ``joint 
development'' project to create ``Windows for X,'' a 
``new product'' to be installed on the OEM's PCs. As long 
as Microsoft's activities are cloaked under this rubric, it is 
exempt from the ban on requiting the OEM to ship a fixed percentage 
of its units loaded with Microsoft's applications, and other 
protections designed to promote competition.
    H. Desktop Customization
    Add/Remove Is For Icons Only, Not The Middleware Itself.'' 
The add/remove provisions in Section III.H in the PFJ only allow for 
removal of end-user access to Microsoft middleware--;not removal 
of the middleware itself. This position is inconsistent with the 
language in the Court of Appeals'' opinion on commingling or 
the ``add/remove'' issue.
    If Microsoft'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 Microsoft to forbid the OEMs from removing its middleware, 
and allowing Microsoft 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, 
Microsoft 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.
    Why Are Non-MS Icons Subject To Add/Remove?: The PFJ gives 
Microsoft an added benefit: it can demand that OEMs include icons 
for non-MS middleware in the add/remove utility. Why this should be 
required, in the absence of any finding that assuring the permanence 
of non-Microsoft middleware on the desktop is anticompetitive, is 
bizarre. This essentially treats the victims of Microsoft's 
anticompetitive behavior as if they were equally guilty of 
wrongdoing.
    Microsoft Can Embed Middleware And Evade Restrictions: Under 
Section III.H.2, end-users and OEMs 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 would 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 its middleware 
components in other middleware (and thereby not displaying it in a 
Top Level Window with all user interface elements), or by simply 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, Eliminating Rival 
Icons: Additionally,-the OEM flexibility provisions are 
substantially undermined by a provision that allows Microsoft to 
exploit its ``desktop sweeper'' to eliminate OEM-installed 
icons by asking an end-user if he/she wants the OEM-installed 
configuration wiped out after 14 days. Thus, the OEM 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 OEM's installations. The effect of 
this provision is to severely devalue the ability of OEMs to offer 
premier desktop space to ISVs--;and to undermine the ability of 
OEMs to differentiate their products and provide consumers with real 
choices. Desktop ``MFN'' Requirements: Finally, nothing in 
the decree appears to forbid Microsoft from 
requiring--;especially where non-middleware is 
concerned--;so- called MFN agreements from the OEMs. These 
agreements tax OEM 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 OEMs Only--;The), May Not Be Able 
To Use Them Without Help: The OEM licensing provision is limited in 
its effectiveness because the OEMs are prevented in Section III.I.3 
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 Section III.G. In addition, the OEMs'' 
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? ``Equal Treatment'' For Law 
Abiders And Law Breakers Is Not Equal: Under Section III.I.5, the 
PFJ requires ISVs, OEMs, and other licensees to license back to 
Microsoft any intellectual property they develop in the course of 
exercising their rights under the settlement. But that simply 
rewards Microsoft for having created the

[[Page 28239]]

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 a 
lawbreaker.
    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 to them in 
Section 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 Section 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 PFJ is, in fact, one of the biggest loopholes: the provision 
found in Section III.J.1 that allows Microsoft to withhold from API, 
documentation or communication protocol disclosure any information 
that would ``compromise the security of .... digital rights 
management, encryption or authentication systems.'' 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 Microsoft to render its DRM solution non-interoperable with 
non-Microsoft Media Players and 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 
,,,,,ill 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, ``,,,'hen linked with Microsoft'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 PFJ's 
disclosure/licensure requirement, the settlement exempts the most 
important applications and services that ,,','ill drive the computer 
industry over the next few years. If Microsoft can wall off 
Passport, .Net, and .Net My Services with impunity--;and link 
these Internet/server-based applications and services to its desktop 
monopoly--;then Microsoft will be in a commanding position to 
dominate the future of computing.
    Additional Problems Raised By Numerous Provisions in Section III 
No Ban On Commingling Of Code.'' Nothing in the agreement 
prohibits Microsoft from commingling code or binding 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 anticompetitive; it rejected a petition for rehearing that 
centered on this issue. And yet, the PFJ would permit this activity 
to continue.
    The danger of the absence of this provision is reinforced by 
what is found in the definition of the Windows Operating System 
Product (``Definition U''), which states that the software 
code that comprises the 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.
    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. For example, in Section III.F.2, Microsoft may enter into 
restrictive agreements with ISVs as long as those agreements are 
``reasonably necessary;'' likewise, the Joint Venture 
provisions found in Section III.G also employ a rule-of-reason test. 
As such, they simply restate textbook antitrust law, and alleged 
violations of these provisions could only be resolved through mini-
trials.
    Server Interoperability Issues (Found in Sections III.E, III.H 
and III.J) Only Full Interoperability Can Reduce Microsoft's 
Barriers To Desktop Competition: The PFJ's proposed server remedy 
will fail to provide meaningful, competitive interoperability 
between Microsoft desktops and non-Microsoft servers because:
    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 potential to provide an 
alternative platform as did the browser or Java. 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 so 
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: (1) can overcome 
the interoperability barriers that Microsoft has erected, and (2) 
have become viable alternatives to Microsoft's own servers, insofar 
as they can fully interoperate with the desktop.
    An incomplete interoperability remedy fails to meet this test. 
Neither consumers (professional IT managers) nor server application 
developers will be attracted to non-Microsoft servers that lack any 
important interoperability functionality. If important 
interoperability barriers are left in place, IT managers simply will 
not buy the product and the remedy will fail to achieve its intended 
purpose. This is an important guiding principle.
    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. Section III.I Excludes Competing Server 
Vendors From The Benefits Of Section III.E's Disclosures: Section 
III.I limits Microsoft's obligation to license its desktop-server 
Communications Protocols to ISVs, IHVs, IAP, ICPs, and OEMs; thus, 
server competitors are excluded from the group of companies that 
Microsoft must license information to under section III.E.
    The Failure To Define ``Interoperate'' Is A Mistake: 
Neither Section III.E nor any other provision of the PFJ defines the 
meaning of ``interoperate.'' The failure to define 
``interoperate'' is tantamount to the Department of 
Justice's (``DOJ'') prior failure to define 
``integrate'' in the 1995 consent decree, and will form 
the basis for unending disputes over the scope of Microsoft's 
disclosure obligations. ``Communications Protocol'' Is 
Defined Too Narrowly And Too Ambiguously: 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 appears to be limited to the Windows 2000 server, and thus 
may exclude Microsoft's Advanced Windows 2000 server and Datacenter 
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'' mean the rules for transmitting information packets 
over a network, or the rules for formatting and interpreting 
information within such packets.
    It appears to be limited to information exchanged via LANs and 
WANs, and therefore may exclude information exchanged over the 
Internet. In other words, having illegally seized dominance over 
browsers, Microsoft will be allowed to use that power to establish 
de facto proprietary protocols for Internet communication and keep 
them entirely to itself. Even in its broadest possible meaning, the 
term ``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.
    Section III.J's Carve-Out Eliminates the Most Important 
Disclosures: What little Section III.E provides, Section III.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.
    Section IV Of The PFJ: Compliance and Enforcement
    A. Enforcement Authority
    Enforcement Authority Is Too Difficult To Employ: Clearly, what 
is missing from the agreement is a quick, meaningful, and empowered 
mechanism for preventing and rectifying Microsoft's inevitable 
violations of

[[Page 28240]]

the agreement. Thus, while the provision allowing Microsoft to cure 
any violations of Sections 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 / D. Voluntary Dispute Resolution
    Source Code Access Is Not Enough: While it is helpful that the 
Technical Committee (``TC'') will have access to 
Microsoft's source code and can resolve disputes involving that 
issue, the TC 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 extend disputes indefinitely: no time limits or 
time-lines are specified for dispute resolution.
    As it stands now, a party injured by Microsoft's violation of 
the decree can complain to the TC, which will then conduct an 
investigation: Once the investigation is complete, the TC will 
presumably issue some decision; while the investigation is ongoing, 
the TC is supposed to consult with Microsoft's Compliance Officer, 
for an indefinite period;
    If the TC concludes that Microsoft violated the agreement, and 
Microsoft does not agree to change its behavior or rectify the 
wrong, then the TC must decide whether to recommend the matter to 
the DOJ for further action;
    Once recommended, the DOJ--;after some review 
period--;may decide to take action, and apply to the court for a 
remedy, or it may not; * And once the 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 ensuring 
that Microsoft complies with its obligations under the decree. In an 
industry where time is of the essence and delays can be fatal, the 
built-in delays that allow Microsoft to drag its feet are wholly 
unacceptable.
    Technical Committee's Investigation Has 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 the process will pose for victims of Microsoft 
violations.
    Section V Of The PFJ: Termination
    A. Five-Year Limit
    Five-Year Coverage Is Inadequate: Given the scope of Microsoft's 
violations, the time period required to restore effective 
competition, and the pattern of willful lawbreaking on Microsoft's 
part, a five-year consent decree is inadequate.
    B. Two-Year Extension
    Penalty For Knowing Violations Is Too Lenient: Amazingly, the 
PFJ provides that no matter how many knowing and willful violations 
Microsoft engages in, the restrictions found in the settlement may 
be extended only for a single two-year period. 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.
    Section VI Of The PFJ: Definitions
    A. APIs
    API Definition Too Narrow: This is discussed above.
    I. ISV
    Definition Is Not Forward-Looking: The definition of ISV is 
drafted too narrowly and should more clearly encompass developers of 
software products designed to run on new versions of the Windows 
operating system and next generation computing devices.
    K. Microsoft Middleware Product
    Definition Exempts Too Much Middleware: Much of the decree is 
based on this definition--;the OEMs'' flexibility turns on 
what is included or excluded from this category of application. And 
yet the definition, which is different from the definition used by 
the District Court (affirmed and employed by the Court of Appeals) 
is fatally flawed.
    First, there are only five existing products that can be known 
with certainty to be ``Microsoft Middleware Products.'' 
That means that highly similar items, such as MSN, MSN Messenger, 
MSN Explorer, Passport, Outlook, and Office may be excluded from the 
definition of middleware. Why Windows Messenger would be covered by 
the PFJ, but MSN Messenger would be exempt; or why Internet Explorer 
would be covered, while MSN Explorer would be exempt--;if this 
is, in fact, how the provision operates--;is a mystery. Why 
ambiguity would be accepted in such a critical area is an even 
greater mystery.
    Given the uncertainty, Microsoft may attempt to retaliate 
against OEMs that remove even the icons for its applications; it may 
also attempt to prohibit end-users from removing these applications 
(or even their icons). This is a step backward from the status quo 
(even in Windows XP); the ambiguity is a gaping hole.
    Second, the generic middleware definition, which applies only to 
new products, and therefore does not capture any product now in 
existence, allows Microsoft to define which products are included or 
not, by virtue of Microsoft's trademark and branding choices. Thus, 
as long as Microsoft buries these products inside other 
applications, they are not independently considered middleware.
    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 Substantial Resources {time} Viii Be 
Protected: 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 OEM flexibility, promotion, and end-user 
choice apply only to these specified products--;not to any other 
software applications.
    And yet, sadly, this narrow definition extends 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 no 
protection from Microsoft's rapacious ways until he can achieve the 
distribution of 1 million copies of his software.
    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, as long as Microsoft restricts its beta testing 
program to 149,999 individuals until very late in the development 
process, it can effectively eviscerate the disclosure requirements. 
Our review of the available documentation shows, for example, that 
Microsoft had no more than 20,000 beta testers 1 for Windows XP 
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 the eve of product 
shipping.
    Slow disclosure of APIs is precisely how Microsoft 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 scope of Microsoft's disclosure obligations under the 
agreement are 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.
    Note that the number of ``beta testers'' will be much 
smaller than the number of ``beta copies'' of a product 
that is being prepared for release.
From: Philip Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:57pm
Subject: Microsoft
    I feel Microsoft has done no wrong and should be left alone to 
innovate and sell their products at whatever the market will bear. 
They are no more a monopoly than a lot of other companies, so if you 
are going to penalize them for that then you need to take action 
against say AOL also and companies like them.

[[Page 28241]]

From: Wildcat
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I certainly hope you take into account that the effects of 
Microsoft's business practices are *still* being felt, even today... 
A brand new computer with anything *other* than Windows on-board is 
still almost unheard of, many hardware manufacturers don't support 
Linux or offer drivers for it, and many corporate websites are 
designed almost exclusively for Internet Explorer in *spite* of the 
W3C standards that are meant to make the ``World Wide 
Web'' more accessible to *all* available browsers. I realize 
that these last two points (drivers and web design) are almost 
entirely due to the preferences of the manufacturers and designers 
respectively, but those people are basing those decisions on the 
atmosphere fostered by Microsoft that it is and shall be the only 
creator of operating system and web browser software.
    Recently, I experienced this form of ``browser 
discrimination'' firsthand. My browser of choice is Netscape, 
and I was finding it difficult to access a major retailer's website 
and on-line shopping outlet --; my browser kept choking out. I 
e-mailed a report of this technical glitch, and received a reply 
suggesting I use Internet Explorer. To me (to use an analogy), this 
is like being unable to get a clear picture of CNN from my cable 
company, only to be told that my RCA television is the problem, and 
that the CNN signal is designed specifically for a Sony. The bottom 
line is, I've never been a big fan of Microsoft, and would really 
rather not give them my money, but as long as they're allowed to 
operate as they have in the past decade, they're going to wind up 
with a share of the profit on almost anything I buy, whether I know 
it or not, whether I *like* it or not.
    Thank you for allowing me to state my opinion.
    Bart Smith
    Independence, KS
    [email protected]



MTC-00028287

From: Mildred/Jerry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:56pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    I/WE ARE IN 100% SUPPORT FOR MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT. WE NEED TIME 
AND MONEY SPENT ON THINGS LIKE ENRON INVESTIGATION. TOO MUCH ADO HAS 
BEEN DIRECTED AT MICROSOFT.
    SPEND MY TAX MONEY ON GOING AFTER REAL CROOKS LIKE ENRON 
EXECUTIVES.
    THANK YOU
    JERRY & MILDRED ROBERTS



MTC-00028288

From: Matt Goun
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Matthew Goun
    1230 Parkwood Drive
    Merrick, NY 11566
    [email protected]
    I have sent a letter stating my thoughts as to settling 
Microsoft's ongoing court case and I am afraid I was a little slow 
in mailing it in.
    My feelings are, enough already. Leave things as they are. 
Microsoft has gotten the right decission and enough tax payers money 
has been spent.
    Sincerely,
    Matthew goun
    Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW
    Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530-;0001



MTC-00028289

From: 
[email protected]@inetg
w
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may Concern,
    I would like to add my voice to those in adamant opposition to 
the proposed Microsoft Settlement. Please reject this proposal in 
favor of a much stronger remedy.
    Please review the current proposed settlement and make sure that 
it adequately represents the interests of open-source advocates, and 
consumers of open-source products. Essentially, the question that 
needs to be addressed first and foremost is ``Are the barriers 
to entry for competition with Microsoft reduced to a reasonable 
level for both commercial and volunteer competitive efforts?''. 
Secondly, I would ask ``Is the punitive element of this ruling 
sufficient to make executives reluctant to engage in similar anti-
competitive behaviour, and stockholders reluctant to support 
executives who do?''.
    I trust that you'll come up with an equitable ruling that 
represents the current and future interests of consumers, even if 
the economy must suffer.
    Sincerely,
    Aaron McHugh
    [email protected]



MTC-00028290

From: Dave Jorgensen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    As a citizen of the United States of America, and an employee in 
the High-Tech sector of our nations economy, I feel compelled to 
write and voice my disagreement with the proposed Microsoft anti-
trust settlement. For the past two decades, I have watched again and 
again as Microsoft leverages its monopoly position to wipe out what 
were once healthy high-tech markets. Their actions have had a 
continued, chilling effect on the industry which will be felt long 
into the future. However one of the few remaining areas where 
Microsoft has not yet accomplished their monopolistic goals, is in 
the education market.
    It's likely that Microsoft would leverage their monopoly to take 
the education market if they could, but they've likely hesitated in 
order to avoid undue attention while the current cases are being 
judged. However, if the proposed settlement (of product donation to 
the schools) is allowed to continue, our legal system will in effect 
be sanctioning, even demanding, that Microsoft flood this additional 
market with its product and drive out competitors from this area as 
well. In effect, the proposed settlement will simply reward 
Microsoft's monopolistic practices by providing them another 
monopoly in the education market.
    I urge the Justice Department, The Court, The Judge, anyone else 
involved, to -reject- the proposed settlement and -insist- on a more 
fair remedy.
    Microsoft is not like some poor farmer who has to hand over his 
old tractor to cover back taxes. The settlement amount is just a 
tiny percentage (3%) of the -huge- cash hoard they have accumulated 
through their monopolistic practices. Short of breaking up the 
company (which I still think is justified) certainly we should at 
the very least, insist that they pay their costs like the rest of us 
do, in cash. Anything less only reinforces their monopolistic 
position.
    Thank you for your consideration in this matter,
    David E. Jorgensen
    350 Budd Ave. #E7
    Campbell, California
    95008, USA
    e-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00028291

From: Chuck1040
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:01pm
Subject: Settlement
    I believe that this matter has dragged on too far and should be 
settled as soon as possible. Get an agreement and move on to other 
problems.
    charles dennard,
    1237 vintage place,
    nashville, tn 37215



MTC-00028292

From: Patrick Purcell
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/28/02 1:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello
    My name is Patrick Purcell. As an Applications Developer and 
consumer of commercial software , I feel I must comment on the 
proposed Final Settlement.
    I will make the following general comments and then move on to 
specific items in the documents .(Civil Action No 98-;1232 and 
Civil Action No 98-;1232 CKK).
    It is my understanding that judgment against Microsoft stands. 
Microsoft was found in violation of the Sherman Act. I believe the 
original remedy should stand. In document Civil Action No 
98-;1232 CKK Section III H 3 Microsoft would be prohibited from 
modifying third party icons,menus, and shortcuts without asking for 
permission of the user.
    The description does not prevent from Microsoft continually 
asking the user if changes should be made.
    In effect the user could be nagged to making a change.
    I believe the language should be strengthen to prevent Microsoft 
from nagging or making

[[Page 28242]]

adjustments through a needed software upgrade ( in the case of a 
software fix).
    In document Civil Action No 98-;1232 CKK Section III J 
Microsoft is not obligated to license or disclose its API to third 
parties.
    The API allows a programmer to develop software and take 
advantage of services the operating system offers.
    Having a closed API excludes developers from using the operating 
system to its full extent and does not provide a level playing 
field. An open API would level the playing field.
    It is possible to have a public API and not compromise security 
and encryption.
    The open source software Linux list all its API while providing 
a high level of security.
    The encryption software Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) provides the 
API and an excellent level of encryption.
    Both Linux and PGP clearly illustrate it is possible to provide 
your complete API to all and still provide levels of security.
    An open API would not preclude making a profit. For example 
Stronghold is a commercial secure web server based on the Apache web 
server. Stronghold is a successful product using an open API from 
the Apache web server. Another example is the Apple product, Mac OS 
X which is based on FreeBSD Unix.
    On December 13, 2001, the ECMA General Assembly ratified the 
C# and common language infrastructure (CLI) specifications into 
international standards. The ECMA standards will be known as ECMA-
334 (C#) and ECMA-335 (the CLI). The C# is a programming 
language developed by Microsoft. By having ECMA (http://www.ecma.ch) 
ratify C# and CLI as international standards, Microsoft lost 
direct control of the future development of these technologies. 
However Microsoft opened the API to the public to strengthen the 
acceptance of these technologies. Microsoft recognizes that 
publishing the API has benefits. Microsoft would not be overall 
negatively affected from publishing its complete API for its 
operating system. The actual publishing of the API could be done 
through an agency such as ECMA.
    The above statements are my sole opinions and do not represent 
the views of my employer.
    I hope you will consider these statements in making a final 
decision.
    Sincerely
    Patrick Purcell



MTC-00028293

From: Burt Harris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement .
    I want to register my support for the proposed settlement of the 
Microsoft antitrust case. The proposed settlement takes reasonable 
steps to address the underlying issue without crossing the boundry 
into the punitive actions that its opponents seem to want inforced.
    As a observer of the situation it strikes me that many of the 
proponents of harsher terms have lost site of the fact that the 
settlement is intended to be a remedy, not a punishment. This seems 
to be driven by the fact that many of the financial backers of these 
groups are in fact competitors of Microsoft.
    I for one, want to make sure that the settlement primarily 
addresses remedying any wrongs suffered by consumers (which I think 
are actually relativily few) as opposed to benefiting Microsoft's 
competitors, especially those competitiors who operate outside the 
narrowly drafted ``market'' for Intel based operating 
systems.
    Burt Harris
    15302 182nd Place NE
    Woodinville, WA 98072



MTC-00028294

From: Juanita Bergh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have been and still am rather disgusted at the lawsuit against 
Microsoft. At the time the lawsuit was filed, I was not an employee 
of Microsoft. Now I am, but my feelings have not changed. I worked 
for a software company for 10.5 years before joining Microsoft. We 
used Netscape as a browser for a short period, but then our company 
switched to Internet Explorer. I don't recall at what point that 
was. But at the time I was using Netscape, the browser was given 
away free as an incentive to get people to switch to using their 
browser. Does this sound familiar? Isn't this part of Netscape/AOL 
Time Warner's complaint against Microsoft? That by offering it free 
and making it available as part of the operating system, Microsoft 
is engaging in non-competative acts. Hmmm. I wonder why it wasn't 
illegal when Netscape was first trying to gain market share. That's 
the main reason we used Netscape, it was free and relatively easy to 
use. However, we found the Internet Explorer worked better for us. 
There are differences and distinctions between the two that I'm not 
terribly familiar with as I have no desire to see if Netscape has 
become more attractive. I have heard that Netscape offers an easy 
way of uploading data, which isn't available in IE. I also have 
heard that Mac users prefer Netscape. The browser that fills the 
need best is the browser that will be used.
    The last couple of times we purchased a computer, it came 
preloaded with a several different internet connectivity options. We 
did not choose to use any of them because we wanted to use a 
different one.
    The fact of the matter is, that if someone wants to use a 
software product, they will use it whether it comes preinstalled or 
not. It's not as though we're talking about a couple hundred dollars 
to purchase Netscape; I can download it today for free. I'm not sure 
if Netscape used to have a charge or what those charges are, but 
it's rather hypocritical to complain about someone else giving 
something away free when you're doing the same thing. As I said 
earlier, who cares if it's preloaded or not; many users today are 
sophisticated enough that they'll find and load what they want.
    Another complaint that bugs me in the lawsuit states that OEM's 
cannot really add much to change the way windows loads; this really 
irks me because I don't want to get a different look and feel from 
windows based on the hardware that I purchase! Is that user-
friendly? We had a Packard-Bell that loaded a bunch of junk from PB 
and it drove us crazy, we disabled it because we didn't want it. I 
want to be able to purchase hardware based on price, not how it 
interacts with the os that I choose!! There's also the issue of 
support and service packs; who's going to support those changes? The 
OEM? Microsoft? Do I get pushed back and forth because the OEM says 
it's not their problem and Microsoft says it's been changed so they 
can't help either? There is nothing worse than trying to support a 
product that has been modified; all your updates are delayed, 
because when Microsoft releases a fix, the OEM has to do the same 
thing. I know how this works; I worked for a software company in the 
support area for 5 years and you cannot support something once 
someone else has modified it. This is NOT in the consumer's best 
interests for any software company to allow that. I know that it 
happens and it has it's advantages, but it's also a miserable 
position for the consumer who needs an update or help.
    I have worked in the computer industry for 11.5 years now and I 
am tickled that consumers have pretty much selected one OS that we 
can use as a basis for developing our own applications. The 
macintosh died in the business application market because Apple's 
focus appears to be the graphic / educational market. We used to 
support our applications on the macintosh for many years, but 
finally discontinued that because it just wasn't a good business 
proposition for us. Many, many software companies have thrived by 
developing on the Microsoft platforms because Microsoft is the 
company that bothers to find out what consumers want and strives to 
give it to us. That's why Microsoft thrived and Apple did not. Apple 
had great potential and is doing fine, but they could've been the 
Microsoft.
    Netscape/ AOL Time Warner would be smarter to use their money to 
improve their products so they can compete based on the 
products'' merit, not to try to cripple a successful rival.
    One more comment on the ``monopoly'' issue. Microsoft 
is not a phone company or utility company where the customer has 
never had a choice; Microsoft has earned it's OS monopoly because no 
other OS has provided customers with what they want. We love to bash 
Microsoft (well, not since I've become an employee) for system bombs 
and crashes, but the fact remains that Microsoft has made it 
possible for millions of users to be able to use and afford a 
computer. My parents, in-laws, and grandparents, who never grew up 
using a computer are able to use email and word processing programs 
because it's easy, simple, and uniform. I can help them figure 
things out with a phone call because the OS behaves the same way no 
matter what type of computer they have! My grandparents would never 
have thought of using a computer in the pre-windows days.
    Microsoft contributes a great deal of money, software and time 
for charitable issues; if anyone has the issues of the consumer at 
heart, it's Microsoft.
    Thanks for listening,
    Juanita Bergh

[[Page 28243]]

    15705 28th St
    Casselton, ND 58012



MTC-00028295

From: King, Steve
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 2:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata Hesse
Department of Justice, Antitrust Department
601 D St NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    I am a State Senator from Iowa and I also the owner of 
construction contracting business. In my capacity as a State Senator 
I am chairman of the state government committee and also serve on 
the commerce committee. I chose to serve on these committees because 
as a business owner I am acutely aware of negative impact over 
regulation can have on business.
    It is from this unique perspective that I am writing you today 
to encourage you to settle the Microsoft anti-trust case
    The suit against Microsoft was brought under anti-trust laws 
that were developed in at a time in our history when our nation was 
growing into the industrial and economic leader it is today. These 
laws were meant to protect American consumers from harm inflicted by 
monopoly companies. These laws have served their purpose in the 
past. However, in this case, I do not think they apply. The 
government and Microsoft's critics have yet to prove consumer harm 
as a result of Microsoft actions or practices.
    As a businessman and strong supporter of our free-market system, 
it is apparent to me that Microsoft's only crime is giving the 
American public a superior product, and therefore has been able to 
build a loyal following of committed users. Assumedly, Microsoft 
worked very hard to develop its products and market. They should not 
be punished for this or for having the business savvy to take action 
to protect their market.
    A closer look at this suit and the lobbying efforts that have 
fueled it will expose disturbing realities. Microsoft's competitors 
do not appreciate that technology consumers are overwhelmingly loyal 
to Microsoft products. However, instead of committing to production 
of new products that may allow them to more successfully compete in 
our free-market, they have banded together and found a way to use 
outdated anti-trust laws for their own purposes.
    The settlement before you is truly a compromise for Microsoft. 
Certainly, Microsoft will be held to the severe provision of this 
settlement, not the least of which is the sharing of intellectual 
property. However, negotiating settlement is the best solution for 
the technology industry and our economy in general. When this 
settlement is approved it will send a signal to the technology 
industry that the threat of government interference has been lifted.
    Sincerely,
    Senator Steve King



MTC-00028296

From: Kevin Port
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:03pm
Subject: Please See Attachment- Microsoft
    Please See Attachment--;Microsoft
    Thank you,
    K. Port
    Kevin Port
    250 Gorge Road # 29D
    Cliffside Park, NJ 07010
    January 28,2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    After three years of seemingly endless litigation, I was frankly 
relieved to hear that Microsoft had reached a tentative settlement 
with the Justice Department in November. This settlement is good for 
consumers and therefore no further action is needed on the federal 
level.
    The terms of the settlement cover many areas and will require 
numerous concessions from Microsoft. One area of concession is in 
relation to intellectual property rights. Microsoft has agreed that 
if a third party's exercise of any options provided for by the 
settlement would infringe any Microsoft intellectual property right, 
Microsoft will provide the third party with a license to the 
necessary intellectual property on reasonable and non-discriminatory 
terms. And to assure this provision and every other one is followed, 
Microsoft will be monitored by a three-member Technical Committee.
    As a former worker in the tech industry, I understand the 
importance of Microsoft's products to our economy. Although I did 
not feel this suit had any merit to begin with, I realize at this 
point the best development is to move forward. I hope your support 
for this settlement continues and that the recent suit by AOL will 
also be terminated. It is not worth the time and money of the 
Justice Department to continue to pursue these actions against 
Microsoft, a successful, entrepreneurial company, that has 
contributed to the success of the U.S. economy and our technological 
breakthroughs. Without the efforts of Microsoft, the global computer 
industry would not have the standards and success we witness today.
    Sincerely,
    Kevin Port



MTC-00028297

From: N P
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    In all honesty the Proposed Final Judgment stinks. I disapprove 
of the tactics uses to get what they want. As one can see, MS, with 
disregard to the rules put in place, will continue to violate all 
anti-trust laws. The Proposed Final Judgment is not a panacea to the 
Microsoft debacle but, in fact, avoids the whole issue altogether.
    Undeniably true and accurate, Microsoft is guilty of breaking 
these laws. Under the final settlement, the DoJ allows MS to retain 
most of its profits gained through past illegal activities. 
Therefore, the PFJ will not compensate parties harmed through 
Microsofts egregious acts.
    In addition, the PFJ will not take into account all Microsoft 
gains made through its illegal maneuverings. With all due respect, 
the final settlement is basically acknowledging the acceptance of 
Microsofts anti-competitive behavior. What kind of message does this 
send out to the public? I can assure you that the message is clear 
and simple.
    The PFJ encourages big corporations to engage in monopolistic 
and predatory conduct, which in turn is detrimental to the 
technology industry at large. With all due respect your honor, I am 
outraged at such a preposterous proposal that only helps Microsoft 
to remain intact and continue with its unethical practices. Thus, I 
conclude by respectfully submitting my disapproval to this Proposed 
Final Judgment.
    Respectfully,
    Mrs. Nimfa Paraso
    7230 Adams Rd.
    Magna, Utah 84044



MTC-00028298

From: BROWNING, CONNIE (AIT)
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/28/02 2:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    Regarding the Microsoft Settlement, as a recent purchaser of a 
new computer preloaded with Microsoft XP, I believe that MS has gone 
too far in automating updates from my personal computer to their 
system. I see the XP software, attempting to contact MS every time 
that I am on the internet. I firmly believe that the software should 
have been designed to request my explicit permission before sending 
information regarding my personal machine.
    Furthermore, I think that MS's exclusive and proprietary 
relationships are not in my best interest, and prevent the further 
innovation of many independent software developers. It was very 
clear to me when loading other software on my XP system, which 
vendors had not paid the price for MS's exclusive arrangements and 
were suffering from the dramatic negative messages that I received 
when trying to load ``unapproved'' software.
    If I had known the nature of XP when purchasing my new computer, 
I would have insisted at the time that the manufacturer supply me 
with another operating system.
    Connie Browning
    468 Liberty Lane
    Westerville, OH 43081



MTC-00028299

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft was found guilty in this case. They have a history of 
similar behavior (examples include DR-DOS and Stac Electronics). 
They are currently targeting Real Networks using similar tactics to 
the ones used against Netscape.
    I do not believe that the proposed final judgement will restrain 
Microsoft's anticompetitive conduct. It does not appear to do 
anything to remedy the effects of their past unlawful conduct.

[[Page 28244]]

    Their current .Net initiative attempts to leverage their desktop 
monopoly to gain a dominant position online services. They should 
not be allowed to do this.
    Peter Goldthorp
    Software Engineer
    Hayward CA



MTC-00028300

From: Grissom, Marlene
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 2:03pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I agree with Microsoft management in Hoping for a quick resolve 
and settlement
    Marlene Grissom



MTC-00028301

From: Chris Arsenault
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    After having read the provided case documents, I have come to 
the following conclusion:
    The proposed Final Judgement for United States v. Microsoft as 
currently written fails to provide a concise and enforceable order 
from the courts. It is inadequate to the task of addressing the 
needs of the People. Given Microsoft's past history of compliance 
with court orders, I feel that it's business practices would be 
difficult to enforce without consequences being written into the 
Final Judgement.
    Such consequences should be related to the grant of monopoly for 
copyrights and patents. In effect, should Microsoft continue 
predatory business practices in a monopolistic fashion, then the 
United States should revoke the grant of copyright to the various 
versions of Windows software and Internet Explorer, as well as the 
foundation source code. This code would be then be placed in the 
public domain. This removes the need for monitoring for compliance 
and reminds Microsoft that it undertakes business at the discretion 
of the People of the United States.
    Additionally, the issue which is at the heart of the 
case--;what constitutes a computing platform, is clearly left 
unanswered by the proposed final judgement as written. Without 
delving into a lengthy argument here, at least recognize that 
support for open source and public standards by which the Internet 
emerged is clearly a wise and prudent action which encourages 
innovation and discourages format lock-in.
    For these reasons and many others, I strongly recommend that the 
court reject this proposed Final Judgement.
    Sincerely,
    Chris Arsenault
    67 Pole Bridge Rd.
    N. Scituate, RI 02857



MTC-00028302

From: Phil Steele
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 2:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    As US citizen, I am outraged at our government's prosecution of 
Microsoft, and I believe the whole antitrust case should be closed. 
I don't need a paternalistic government to tell me which software I 
should buy or to use my tax dollars prosecuting companies whose 
products I enjoy and find immensely valuable. This is not the proper 
role of government, and such antitrust actions must, by their 
nature, ultimately be destructive of consumer choice in the 
marketplace.
    Please accept this letter as one citizen's plea for a government 
that protects me from force and fraud--;not from valuable 
products successfully marketed by successful companies.
    Philip Steele
    691 Ora Avo Drive
    Vista, CA 92084



MTC-00028303

From: jack gelin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
1662 E 24th Street
Brooklyn, NY 11229
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I understand the Courts will make their final decision next week 
on whether the proposed Microsoft settlement benefits the public. 
I'd like to express my feeling on this issue.
    Microsoft did not get off easy. The settlement was arrived at 
after extensive negotiations with a court-appointed mediator. The 
Company agreed to terms that extend beyond what was expected in the 
suit.
    They also agreed to design future versions of Windows, starting 
with an interim release of Windows XP, to provide a mechanism to 
make it easy for computer companies, consumers and software 
developers to promote non-Microsoft software within Windows. This 
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 or change their configuration at any 
time.
    Microsoft really needs to get back to business because they 
helped the economy far more than they could ever hurt the economy. 
Let's end the litigation!!
    Sincerely,
    Jack Gelin
    cc: Representative Anthony David Weiner



MTC-00028304

From: Fred Murhammer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the Department of Justice's settlement with 
Microsoft. I believe it is not in the public interest due to the 
many loop holes in the settlement agreement. I believe that the nine 
states which are opposing this settlement are acting in the public 
interest. I urge the D.O.J. to join forces with these nine states, 
who are seeking stiffer penalties and safeguards to be imposed on 
Microsoft. If the D.O.J. settlement with Microsoft is enacted it 
will allow Microsoft to return to business as usual, which is to 
abuse it Monopoly position to squash competition and innovation to 
the detriment of the general public.
    Thank you,
    Fred Murhammer



MTC-00028305

From: Bill Kirtley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may concern-
    I am writing as a US taxpayer, voter, and citizen to protest the 
Proposed Final Judgment in the matter of the United States vs. 
Microsoft antitrust lawsuit.
    I do not feel that the solution as proposed either punishes 
Microsoft for previous anticompetitive behavior, reduce the barriers 
to entry for vendors other than Microsoft innovating in the field, 
or inhibits Microsoft from engaging in monopolistic behavior in the 
future.
    A number of well reasoned arguments have been written on the 
subject, and I won't revisit them here. One good one can be found 
at: http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html I feel that the best 
way to protect the market without unduly punishing Microsoft 
shareholders would be to sever Microsoft into separate companies, 
and require that those companies interact with each other in an 
above-the-board way. They should use only each others published 
APIs. There should be clear delineation of the money being spent and 
earned on individual products. Furthermore I am shocked by the 
timing of this agreement. The Justice Department has abandoned all 
attempts to preserve the appearance of enforcing the law. A cynical 
observer might conclude that the defendant in this case was 
successful in purchasing influence during the last Presidential 
election season.
    Thank you for your attention.
    Bill Kirtley;
    117 Newport Street;
    Arlington MA 02476



MTC-00028306

From: The Young Family
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:07pm
Subject: RE. Microsoft Settlement
    Please accept the settlement as is. This has got to end. Thank 
You,
    Sondra Young



MTC-00028307

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:05pm
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

[[Page 28245]]

going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the computer user.
    This is just another method for states to get free money, and a 
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer 
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic 
industry the world has ever seen.
    Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Mary Ellen Torres
    121 Crest Haven Drive
    Belleville, IL 62221-;4387



MTC-00028308

From: james bohan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:08pm
Subject: RE: M.S. case
    I think that at the very least they should be broken up. In 
addition, I would recommend that the us gov not spend any more money 
on their operating systems, when there are cheaper and better ones 
out there.



MTC-00028309

From: Hugh B. Brawford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:08pm
Subject: Microsoft anti- trust settlement
    I support the settlement..it is time to encourage our hard 
working succesful USA businessmen.
    Thank you
    Hugh B. Brawford C.R.S.



MTC-00028310

From: 
[email protected]@i
netgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Here is a letter I am trying to fax you. The fax lines are very 
busy so I'll give email a try.
    (See attached file: BonnieMS.doc)
    Bonnie F. Wood
    Provident Mutual Life Insurance Company
    B3S
    Bonnie--;[email protected]
    610-;407-;1462
    fax 302-;452-;7264



MTC-00028310--;0001

Bonnie Wood
116 Timber Springs Lane
Exton, PA 19341
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft Fax 1-;202-;307-;1454
US Department of Justice Page 1 of 1
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    This letter is to give my support to the Microsoft and 
Department of Justice settlement. Microsoft is one of our greatest 
companies and I resent the government interference in what is 
basically competition between technology companies. I doubt whether 
Microsoft has done anything that the other firms have not. More 
likely, the other firms could not compete and have gone crying to 
the government. They just want a bigger piece of the pie.
    You don't have to look any further than AT&T to see the 
havoc that can result from breaking up certain so-called monopolies. 
AT&T was deemed a monopoly while we had the best service in the 
world. Now, no one can understand the half-dozen phone bills 
received each month from strange sounding phone companies. Phone 
companies come and go with alarming frequency, and those that stay 
in business seem to be merging all back together. I often wonder if 
I would have been better off if AT&T had been left alone.
    The same may be true for Microsoft. In any event, Microsoft and 
the Justice Department have reached an agreement. Microsoft has 
agreed to open the company up to third party innovation; has agreed 
to disclose internal source codes for Windows; and agreed to an 
oversight committee. This is more than fair.
    I urge you to give your approval to this agreement.
    Thank you for your consideration of my views.
    Sincerely,
    Bonnie Wood
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum
    202-;228-;0604



MTC-00028311

From: Nutton, Thomas G
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 2:07pm
Subject: aol
    I believe this can not go forward and in this will be in the 
best interest of the USA. Tom N.



MTC-00028312

From: Adam C Powell IV
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:10pm
Subject: Microsoft ``settlement''
    Greetings,
    I am writing to strongly oppose the terms of the 
``settlement'' offer in the Microsoft antitrust case. That 
Microsoft has violated the law is without question. But the proposed 
settlement in fact rewards that company for its misdeeds, rather 
than punishing them. I must remind you that the marginal cost of 
software is a tiny fraction of its retail price, and therefore the 
stated monetary value of the cost to Microsoft is far in excess of 
the actual cost to that company. Furthermore, this 
``punishment'' allows Microsoft to expand its market share 
in education, which has long been one of their weakest markets. In 
other words, this does not punish Microsoft at all, and in fact 
rewards their lawbreaking activity, handing them more of a monopoly 
on a silver platter.
    As an administration and political party which prides itself on 
being ``tough on crime'', I would urge you to not reward 
Microsoft for commiting a crime whose impact on society is 
unmeasurable. The nation awaits your decision, and hopes that you 
will bring about justice in this case.
    Sincerely,
    Adam Powell http://lyre.mit.edu/powell/
    Thomas B. King Assistant Professor of Materials Engineering
    77 Massachusetts Ave. Rm. 4-;117 Phone (617) 452-;2086
    Cambridge, MA 02139 USA Fax (617) 253-;5418



MTC-00028313

From: James Love
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement



MTC-00028313--;0001

Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Date: January 28, 2002
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
Email: [email protected]
(Note: In the Subject line of the e-mail,
type Microsoft Settlement.)
Fax 1-;202-;307-;1454 or 
1-;202-;616-;9937
From: Ralph Nader
P.O. Box 19312
Washington, DC 20036
James Love
Consumer Project on Technology
P.O. Box 19367
Washington, DC 20036
Introduction
    Having examined the proposed consent final judgment for USA 
versus Microsoft, we offer the following 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 to see a move away 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 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 be 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

[[Page 28246]]

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 for 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 Microsoft, and as is indicated by the record in this case, 
Microsoft can and does take advantage of any loopholes in contracts 
to create barriers to competition and enhance and extend its 
monopoly power.
    Special Concerns for Free Software Movement
    The provisions in J.1 and J.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 
Internet 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 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/
0-;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 property 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,''1 leading to a round of new 
stories, including for example this account in CNET.Com: http://
news.cnet.com/news/0-;1003-;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 cast 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 A1 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 if a 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 product 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.1 and J.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

[[Page 28247]]

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 anticompetitive abuses.
    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.
    Failure to address Ill 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 
breakers? 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. 1 http://www.suntimes.com/output/tech/
cst-fin-micro01.html ``Microsoft CEO takes launch break with 
the Sun-Times,'' Chicago Sun Times, June 1, 2001.
    James Love
    Consumer Project on Technology
    P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036
    http://www.cptech.org, 
mailto:[email protected]
    voice: 1.202.387.8030 fax 1.202.234.5176 mobile 1.202.361.3040

 

MTC-00028314

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement!!!!!--;-Tunney Act Period
    Attn: DOJ and Judge: This note is to support the proposed 
settlement in the Microsoft case. It is about time this case be 
ended. In all the years of watching litigation, this case is the 
clearest example I have ever sceen of a competitor induced lawsuit. 
Clearly, the Clinton Adm raised millions and got the Calif. 
electoral votes in exchange for this case. Further, so called judge 
jackson railroaded Microsoft in every aspect of the case. As a 
CONSUMER the prices paid by me and every one else is essentially 
nominal to the benefits realised by use of this software.
    Each computer based ahrdware and software company seeks to use 
their innovation over the competition. These competitors just dont 
have the skill and talent to realize the kind of success that has 
come to Microsoft. Please put an end to this matter as clearly as 
can be done.
    Thank You!!
    David R. Gray, Esq.
    ([email protected])

 

MTC-00028315

From: LETTIE POE
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:11pm
Subject: ``Microsoft Settlement''
    Gentlemen:
    URGENT REQUEST!!!
    Three years ago, the U. S. Department of Justice charged 
Microsoft with having engaged in anti-competitive behavior based on 
allegations by its top competitors. I feel that Microsoft was 
singled out in this action taken, and now I realize that The Justice 
Department is in the final stages of deliberating on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement to decide whether to accept the settlement or 
to litigate it further.
    Personally, I believe that the proposed settlement offers a 
reasonable compromise that will enhance the ability of seniors, like 
myself, and all Americans, as well, to access the internet and use 
innovative software products to make their computer experience 
easier and more enjoyable. I am e-mailing you at this time to 
request that you not allow Microsoft's competitors to undermine the 
settlement negotiated with the federal government and nine states; 
although, the settlement is tough on Microsoft as it is, I feel it 
is a fair outcome for all parties concerned particularly senior 
consumers. I feel that it not only will benefit the seniors, but 
this settlement more importantly will have a very positive impact on 
the American economy and will help to pull the Country from the jaws 
of recession in which we have been experiencing over the past year.
    I feel that consumer interests have been served well, and that 
now the time has come to end this costly and damaging litigation. 
Continuing with this legal battle further will only benefit the 
wealthy competitors, lawyers, and special interest groups.
    Please do not litigate this matter further, and go ahead and 
accept the settlement for the betterment of the public interest; all 
the Country.
    Sincerely,
    Lettie Ann Poe
    2214 Hemerick Place
    Clearwater, FL 33765-;2227
    Telephone Number (727) 796-;6992
    E-mail [email protected]
    CC: Lettie Ann Poe

 

MTC-00028316

From: a p
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally-
    I implore you to reconsider the guidelines set forth in the 
Proposed Final Judgment. Most honorable one, please analyzes the 
true facts in the final settlement and judge

[[Page 28248]]

accordingly. In the past week it has been brought to my attention a 
most astonishing development in the MS case. A Final Settlement has 
been reached between the two parties. However, based on the details 
provided to me, the PFJ overturns findings by the U.S. Court of 
Appeals indicts Microsoft on violating antitrust laws. After further 
review of the proposed settlement I find it hard to believe the 
Justice Department would withdraw their charges against Microsoft. 
In fact, based on the assessments made on the proposal, Microsoft 
will go scotch free from any charges of wrong doing in the matter. 
How can this be?
    There are several glaring flaws in the PFJ. However, non-so more 
apparent than allowing an absentee landlord to govern Microsoft. 
With all due respect, the final settlement provides no security to 
restrict MS from breaking any laws in the future. In my humble yet 
accurate opinion, the future governing body, implementing certain 
rules or regulations and forcing MS to adhere by them, will not be 
stringent nor forceful enough to make any dramatic changes.
    Similarly, I am not convinced that these stiff penalties applied 
to MS will ensure the security and future growth of other companies. 
A stiffer penalty and a whole new framework of laws must be 
established to justly punish MS. The Proposed Final Judgment 
abstains from such justification and order. I conclude therefore by 
objecting to the Proposed Final Judgment.
    All the Best,
    Ariel Paraso
    3450 West 8539 South
    West Jordon, UT 84088

 

MTC-00028317

From: Grant Young(b)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 28, 2002
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division--;US Department of Justice
601 D Street NW--;Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
[email protected]
Attorney Hesse:
    I am emailing to urge the approval of the settlement of the 
Microsoft antitrust case. The DOJ, Microsoft and the Attorney 
Generals that have signed onto this case deserve enormous credit for 
finding a way to settle this case.
    Our economy is the envy of the rest of the world because we have 
created a successful free-market based competition. As with any 
competition there are winners and losers. Microsoft has been the 
leader of the software industry for so many years because they 
create good products at a decent price. The people who run this 
company have worked hard to achieve this and work even harder to 
protect the companies leading status.
    While there are those who believe Microsoft has engaged in 
unfair practices and even harmed consumers, I fail to see where this 
has been proven over the last 4 years of this case. I believe that 
many of those involved in this case have come to see it is a losing 
battle. Microsoft will not be broken up.
    Settleing this case is the right thing to do.
    Respectfully,
    Grant Young
    3000 Grand Avenue, #910
    Des Moines, Iowa 50312
    [email protected]



MTC-00028318

From: richard sonnier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:06pm
Subject: [Fwd: Microsoft kills Real World/Great Plains Classic]
    direct quote from letter to customers dated january 22,2002.
    ``Your Microsoft Great Plains Classic accounting solution 
(peviously known as Real World Classic) has benn an important part f 
both your and our business success, Since it has been available many 
companyies have relied on Classic to accurately track and report 
financial information, we are proud to have played a role in your 
business in the past and we hope to play that role in the 
future.''
    ``due to the flexibility of Windows-based products, sales 
of Classic have been dropping, with demand for technical support 
steadily declining.
    TEREFORE WE ARE ANNOUNCING THAT TELEPHONE SUPPORT OF CLASSIC 
WILL END JANUARY 31,2003, AND ELECTRONIC SUPPORT WILL END 
MARCH31,2003, iN ADDITION SALES OF CLASSIC WILL END JUNE 30,2002, 
THIS NOTICE GIVES YOU ADEQUATE TIME TO WEIGH YOUR OPTIONS AND 
DETERMINE YOUR NEXT STEP''
    1. CLASSIC RUNS ON MANY PLATFORMS (UNIX,DOS,IBM,SUN, HP) AND THE 
ONLY OPTIONS GIVEN TO CUSTOMERS IS CONVERT AT EXTREME EXPENSE TO 
``WINDOWS-BASED''.
    2. THE SALES AND SUPPORT ARE DECLINING BECUASE MICROSOFT HAS NOT 
FURNISHED ANY ENCHANCEMENTS!!!!
    3. MICORSOFT PURCHASED GREAT PLAINS WHICH HAD PREVIOUSLY 
PURCHASED REAL WORLD LESS THEN 1 YEAR AGO.
    AND ARE NOT ELIMINATEING 20,000+ USERS PF OTHER PLATFORMS. tHIS 
IS A CLEAR VIOLATIONS OF ANTITRUST.
    BY THE WAY MICROSOFT DID THE EXACT SAME THING ``FOX 
SOFTWARE'' BOUGHT/CHANGED TO FOXPRO ``WINDOWS-BASE:'' 
AND ELIMINATED OTHER PLATFORMS.
    RICHARD L. SONNIER
    GULF CENTRAL SYSTEMS
    800 MIRE STREET
    HOUMA, LA 70364
    985-;851-;6674
    [email protected]



MTC-00028319

From: James Hertzog
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:12pm
Subject: microsoft
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Why are you not letting Microsoft get back to work? Please 
encourage research and development in our country instead of 
persecuting it.
    Sue N. Hertzog
    248 Hwy 289N
    Ash Flat, AR 72513



MTC-00028320

From: Stephen Calandrino
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    8 Domidion Court
    Middletown, New Jersey 07748
    January 3, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you to express my belief that the time has come to 
end the Microsoft antitrust case. The Justice Department's proposed 
settlement plan should be implemented immediately.
    I believe the plan is more than fair from the 
complainants'' standpoint. The procedures and policies 
Microsoft will adopt exceed the original demands of its competitors. 
Microsoft will have to share code, change marketing and licensing 
practices, and submit to government oversight. The company will open 
itself up to more than mere market competition; it will be required 
to aid its competitors. This is more than sufficient.
    This company should be allowed to return to the business of 
developing and producing the world's most accessible computer 
systems. It's time to end this case.
    Sincerely,
    Stephen Calandrino



MTC-00028321

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:11pm
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,
    Americo Cardillo
    168 Lake Garden Dr.
    Cranston, RI 02920



MTC-00028322

From: Bryce Carey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 28249]]

    Hello,
    I understand you are collecting comments on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement under the provisions of the Tunney Act. Please 
count me as an interested party (consumer and citizen) who is 
OPPOSED to the settlement as it currently stands.
    I would like to see the settlement re-negotiated with terms that 
are more carefully selected to protect competitors to Microsoft and 
especially to change the provisions that could potentially allow 
Microsoft to inhibit competition from non-commercial software 
projects such as the Open Source software available on the GNU/Linux 
platform. As a Monopoly, Microsoft must be actively restricted from 
tilting the proverbial ``level playing field'' by their 
legal and marketing influences. I do not think the current 
settlement proposal does enough to assure a fair competitive 
environment.
    Thank you,
    Ralph Bryce Carey
    [email protected]
    Instructional Specialist,
    Aztec Middle College,
    Tucson Unified School District
    Tucson, Arizona



MTC-00028323

From: Jules Feldmann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    January 28, 2002
    TO: Renata B. Hesse
    U.S. Department of Justice
    In 1976, I purchased a computer to use in my business. It was an 
IBM and I was forced to use their proprietary ``operating 
system.'' Application programs for this computer were limited 
as to vendors because each vendor had to develop their software for 
use on a specific machine or operating system.
    When Microsoft entered the scene, they utilized an ``open 
architecture'' approach allowing their ``operating 
system'' to utilize any brand of computer. Because their 
``operating system'' was not specific to a particular 
hardware brand, the soffware application developers were able to 
write application programs that would work on any computer running 
the DOS operating system. Because of this ``open 
architecture'' we consumers were given the choice of many more 
computer hardware manufacturers, rather than being limited to the 
manufacture's computer that ran our intended application.
    There are several operating systems available that offer an 
alternative to MS DOS or Windows. Microsoft has been a boon to the 
small business computer user and to the U.S economy as well.
    The government's antitrust activities directed at Microsoft has 
damaged our economy to a much greater extent than leaving Microsoft 
to the forces of a free market.
    I believe in free markets and I am convinced that a new 
competitor would have eventually developed a challange to Microsoft 
by offering a viable alternative.
    It is time for the government to stop pursuing this destructive 
course of antitrust prosecution.
    Accept the settlement and let the industry move forward.
    Thank you for taking the time to listen to my concerns.
    Jules Feldmann, CPA
    [email protected]



MTC-00028324

From: D P
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    I oppose the proposed resolution in the MS case, better know as 
the Proposed Final Judgment. Over and above the usual economic risks 
presented by an unchecked monopolist--;rising prices and 
monochromatic innovation the nations computer infrastructure will be 
increasingly vulnerable to attack if a single software system 
predominates.
    Obviously I am referring to Microsoft.
    Suppose that 80 or 90percent of the world's grain supply came 
from a single variety of corns. We would be faced with the 
unacceptable risk that some single disease, might wipe out an 
enormous portion of our food supply. Having only one kind of 
operating system or one kind of browser would make it terribly 
easier for saboteurs to bring the entire Internet to its knees. For 
one entity, such as Microsoft, to control 80 to 90 percent of the 
market for PC operating systems, Internet browsers, e-mail readers, 
and office productivity software is clearly a significant security 
risk. To then allow that monopoly to actively attempt to drive out 
its remaining competition would hardly be in the public interest. 
Diversity is the key in producing economic prosperity and improving 
the society as a whole.
    It's now up to you, Judge Kollar-Kotally, to decide whether the 
proposed settlement between Microsoft and the DoJ is a correct and 
just solution. However I believe it contains too many loopholes to 
create the desired effect, changing MSs behavior, let alone bring 
forth a certain types of diversity which would enhance our security.
    Kind Regards,
    Debbie Paraso
    3450 West 8539 South
    West Jordon, UT 84088



MTC-00028325

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a professional developing both computer hardware and 
software, I feel that the proposed DOJ settlement with Microsoft 
will not prevent Microsoft from continuing to act contrary the the 
best interest of the public.
    In particular, non-profit organizations are particularly harmed 
by allowing Microsoft to refuse cooperation. If non-profit 
organizations developing software for free distribution are not in 
the public interest, what is ? Microsoft became the unstoppable 
behemoth that it is today through unsavory and illegal commercial 
tactics. It must be held accountable and punished.
    The proposed DOJ settlement appears to be written by Microsoft, 
for Microsoft.
    Please strike down this proposal, and continue to pursue a 
solution which adequately addresses past Microsoft actions, and 
prevents future abuses.
    Sincerely,
    John A. Watlington
    4 Pinewood Rd.
    Acton, MA 01720



MTC-00028326

From: Philip I. Long
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As I'm sure many have pointed out, the current settlement is 
deficient for many reasons. I would like try to summarize the most 
important issues as I see them:
    Microsoft was found to be a monopolist due to the applications 
barrier to entry. Microsoft has shown itself very adept at 
leveraging it's desktop monopoly to creating barriers to entry, as 
well as defending that desktop monopoly. Therefore an effective 
settlement must take into account that the monopolist is strong, 
smart, unrepentant, and resistant to any measures that diminish it's 
control.
    The necessary and sufficient remedy to a monopolist is the 
possibility for competition in this case, several things would be 
helpful to allow this to occur:
    1) Microsoft must lack the ability to use intellectual property 
protection (patents, trade secrets, etc.) to prevent 
--;any--; entity (company, open source coalition, etc.) to 
create and distribute (in any way they choose) their own 
implementation of Microsoft functionality in any of their products. 
In other words, they must not be allowed any means to stop another 
entity from creating and distributing their own implementation of 
anything they want.
    2) Microsoft must expose the functional specifications of all of 
their products so that others could implement them. This includes 
protocols, file formats, APIs, etc. It should also include all 
information it's own developers have regarding future directions. I 
should emphasize that I believe that Microsoft has a right to keep 
secret their own implementation. Requiring the monopolist to publish 
the source code to all of their software (without granting the 
license to copy or compile it) would be effective, but would go too 
far in my opinion.
    3) Microsoft should be prohibited from using their PC desktop 
monopoly to promote (in any way) other business initiatives. Eastman 
Kodak's experience with their photo software is telling cautionary 
tale on this point. As is AOL's/Real's struggles with the MS media 
player. In particular, the control Microsoft aims to obtain with 
passport is in need of very close scrutiny. Any effective settlement 
should prevent the monopolist from approaching these or other 
initiatives in this manner.
    4) Any settlement should prohibit Microsoft from taking any 
action that discourages alternative desktop operating system 
adoption. A particularly egregious examples is the rumored OEM 
license agreement prohibiting the ability to boot to other operating 
systems if a Microsoft operating system is also present. This works

[[Page 28250]]

to prevent Dell, Gateway, etc. from giving the public an option to 
have a PC that would multiboot BE, Linux, etc. in addition to 
windows. Clearly this helps the monopolist maintain it's monopoly, 
but hurts consumers. Another example would be discontinuing existing 
support of on alternative platforms. Microsoft should be prohibited 
from, for example, releasing windows versions of MS Office without 
simultaneously releasing a Mac version. I would not go so far as to 
say that they should be forced to release a Linux version of Office, 
but that would be nice (and I'd buy it if they did even at full 
retail of $500 or whatever they are charging these days).
    5) Because the harm they cause is hidden in secret agreements, 
Microsoft should be prohibited from keeping secret any contracts 
they enter into.
    They should all be available for public review.
    I believe that Microsoft would balk at any settlement that 
effectively addressed any of these points. That they object should 
not be of any concern to the public or justice because they benefit 
from intellectual property laws (cf their BSA campaign). As they 
have built their corporation on the benefit of these laws and have 
been found to have gone too far and become a monopoly, they must be 
subject to measures that could not be fairly applied to an entity 
that had not violated the law to the detriment of consumers. I do 
not expect them to take kindly to the notion that they must compete 
on price and quality alone, but it would be of great benefit to 
consumers, innovation, and the global economy if they had to.
    I urge the Department of Justice to ensure that any settlement 
effectively address these concerns.
    Thank You,
    Philip Long
    373 Daniels Rd.
    Barboursville, VA 22923-;2808
    --;
    Phil Long
    Lead Software Applications Development Engineer, The MITRE 
Corporation's
    Center for Advanced Aviation System Development
    Voice: (703) 883-;5810 Fax: (703) 883-;1367



MTC-00028327

From: Peter Olend
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
4848 Carberry Creek Road
Jacksonville, OR 97530-;9329
January 15, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I was pleased to hear that the Department of Justice and many of 
the states decided to settle the Microsoft antitrust case. I would 
like the judge handling the case to approve the settlement.
    In my opinion, this case should never have been brought against 
Microsoft. Through hard work and innovation, Microsoft has changed 
our world for the better. Microsoft has broken the inter-operability 
barrier and operational obfuscation that the likes of IBM, Sperry-
Rand, Digital Equipment Corporation, Varian, ATT and others 
carefully nurtured prior to the 1980's.
    For this, Microsoft is being punished under the guise that they 
have engaged in anti-competitive behavior. Do you remember the way 
ATT handled the release of the original Kernigan and Ritchy UNIX 
into the public domain and the antics of the ``UNIX 
Consortium''? That was anti-competitive behavior. Nothing 
breeds contempt like success. However, in the interest of wrapping 
up this suit, I support Microsoft's decision to be bound by the 
terms of the settlement agreement.
    Microsoft has gone so far as agreeing to disclose to its 
competitors various interfaces internal to the Windows operating 
system. As a development systems engineer, I find nothing inhibiting 
about the public interfaces. They have also agreed not to take 
action against those who violate Microsoft's intellectual property 
rights. Similarly, they will not take action against computer 
manufacturers who ship computers containing the competition's 
software.
    Settling this case is in the best interests of all involved. I 
urge the Court to approve this settlement agreement. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Peter Olend



MTC-00028328

From: Chauncey Orton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Attached is our pro-opinion for the settlement of the Microsoft 
case.
    CC: 
[email protected]@
inetgw
    29651 Wilhite Lane
    Valley Center, CA 92082
    January 27,2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Approval of the Microsoft case settlement will be in the best 
interests of America. The case has gone on long enough for the 
parties to state their cases and present their evidence. Also, the 
settlement addresses all the issues in the litigation and goes 
beyond the scope of the litigation. The parties could agree to terms 
beyond the litigation, but the judge would be restricted to only the 
formal issues. So, the settlement is better than anything even the 
judge could do. What is more, the settlement means that there would 
be no time consuming and potentially derailing court proceedings. 
The economy does not have stability needed for growth when one of 
America's leading industries is in an unsettling wrangle.
    The settlement will provide greater flexibility, cooperation and 
stability within the information technology industry. Microsoft will 
open up its business practices and software code. A committee of 
technically skilled and recognized software engineering expert 
parishioners will see that the terms are followed and hear and 
investigate any complaints.
    Enriching our legal system further is counter productive to 
expanding businesses. A one time legal business charge this past 
year, of 2/3 of a billion dollars to defend itself from its own 
government, is outrageous. The U.S. government is very concerned 
about what Enron did to their employee's retirement funds and they 
should be. But on a much larger scale, the government should look at 
what their actions did to the Microsoft stockholders'' 
retirement funds.
    We look forward to your leadership of bringing the Gov. vs. 
Microsoft's legal case to an end and focus on the real threat 
against the U S.- the terrorist.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Steve and Suzanne Orton
    cc: Representative Darrell Issa



MTC-00028329

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:21pm
Subject: I support the settlement
    Rose Ryba Pomeranz
    16 High Meadow Lane
    Oyster Bay Cove, NY 11771



MTC-00028330

From: Lee Kenna
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the Proposed Final Judgement in the Microsoft 
case is flawed, principally because it allows continued 
``bolting'' of non--; integral software to the Windows 
operating system, in such a way as to minimize the opportunity for 
other (non -Microsoft) competing products in the market space for 
these types of non--;integral software. Competitiveness and the 
American economy are not served by allowing Microsoft, in spite of 
the Judges'' ruling that they had acted unlawfully, to continue 
these practices.
    Respectfully,
    Lee M. Kenna
    CEO
    SIMCO Electronics
    1178 Bordeaux Drive
    Sunnyvale, Ca. 94089
    Tel 408-;734-;9750



MTC-00028331

From: G M
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    I am opposed to the back-room deal cut between Microsoft and the 
DoJ. Several close friends and relatives have informed of this 
matter entailing a proposed settlement, notoriously understood as 
the Proposed Final Judgment. Truthfully from where I sit, I dont 
like what I see.
    I cant believe the Justice Dept. threw out all court findings 
indicting Microsoft for all illegal activities. First of all the 
Proposed Final Judgment grants MS a government mandated monopoly 
that threatens to destroy any and all serious Microsoft competitors. 
Im all for free enterprise and what it symbolizes. To strike a huge 
blow against the spirit of free enterprise, one need not look any 
further than to allow MS to monopolize every sector, whether it is 
the gaming industry or the

[[Page 28251]]

software industry, by eradicating most if not all competitors. By 
all means diversity is one essential ingredient in maintaining a 
healthy industry and more importantly a thriving economy.
    I submit my disapproval to the Proposed Final
    Judgment.
    Kind Regards,
    Gladys Montefrio
    6024 Palamino Court
    Stockton, CA 95210



MTC-00028332

From: McGreal, Martin P.
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 2:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This settlement proposal--;agreed to by the DOJ and all but 
nine states--; seems alarmingly lenient for a company that was 
proven not only to be an illegal monopoly, but to have repeatedly 
abused that monopoly.
    I vehemently oppose this settlement, wishing for more austere 
punishment of the defendant, as well as provisions for the 
prevention of future monopolisic abuse by the defendant.
    Sincerely,
    Martin McGreal
    St Louis, MO



MTC-00028333

From: Argo, Rich W.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the proposed settlement is a bad idea.
    First and foremost, the proposed settlement primarily deals with 
Microsoft's dealings with OEMs. While this is a start, it does not 
go nearly far enough.
    It also does not appear to enable OEMs to ship a PC with no 
operating system on it at all. Many users wish to install Linux, 
FreeBSD or many other free and open source operating systems and 
should not be forced to pay for an operating system that they do not 
want to use.
    Furthermore, additional provisions need to be implemented in the 
settlement that will force Microsoft to make versions of Microsoft 
Office available for the 3 most popular desktop operating systems 
Currently that would be Linux, Macintosh and Windows. Currently 
Microsoft only produces versions for Windows and Macintosh. Macs 
aren't used in the business world very much and are more expensive 
relative to Intel-based PCs--;which is what Microsoft Windows 
runs on. If there was a version of Office available for Linux, there 
would then be a choice for consumers that use Intel processors. This 
would open up competition for operating systems on the Intel 
processing platform as many businesses are reluctant to switch to 
another OS since they may not be able to run Office applications. In 
order to help enforce the spirit of this proposal, provisions would 
have to be implemented to force Microsoft to release versions of 
Office concurrently on all platforms.
    Additionaly, all Windows API's should be open so that 
competitors that wish to produce software for Windows would be 
allowed to compete fairly with Microsofts products. All Microsoft 
Office file formats should be standardized with an open API so that 
anyone wishing to compete with an Office-like package could do so 
fairly.
    Microsoft should not under any circumstances be allowed to ship 
any additional Microsoft software product free of charge along with 
their Windows operating system. The only exceptions to this rule 
should be utilities such as Notepad, WordPad and the various command 
line utilities that currently ship with Windows. Internet Explorer 
should not ship as a free part of Microsoft Windows. Neither should 
Microsoft Money. No Microsoft software that competes with another 
software product should be included with the operating system. If 
other competing products are offered for download for free from 
competitor's sites, then Microsoft should be allowed to offer free 
downloads for those kinds of products, but should not be allowed to 
ship those with the operating system. If they are allowed to do so, 
they are unfairly extending their monopoly power. If Microsoft so 
wishes to ship a software product in with their operating system, 
they should have to submit that request to a third party committee 
that would vote on whether or not to allow said inclusion, but only 
after a 90 day period whereby anyone wishing to protest said 
inclusion is given the opportunity to do so before the committee in 
person, via email or paper mail.
    If Microsoft is found to have violated any part of the 
settlement they should be fined a minimum of $1 billion. On the 
surface, this may sound like an exorbant amount. However, nothing 
short of this will likely prevent Microsoft from violating the 
settlement and adequately punish them if they do.
    Thank you,
    Richard W. Argo
    Web Designer, McLeodUSA



MTC-00028334

From: Andrew Hagel
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 2:26pm
Subject: RE: United States v. Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    After reviewing the documents concerning the case, it is my 
personal opinion that the remedies currently proposed by the 
Department of Justice are in the best interests of the consumer, and 
that the marketplace is the appropriate competitive venue, as 
opposed to the court system.
    Yours truly,
    Andrew Hagel
    CC:'andrewhagel(a)mediaone.net''



MTC-00028335

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like it to be known that I fully support the settlement 
proposed by the Government and Microsoft. This decision will bring 
about stability and confidence to the technology sector and conclude 
a case that I strongly disagree with. Microsoft makes products that 
benefit the public. As a software developer who uses Internet 
Explorer in most of my projects, I've never understood the lawsuit. 
Why so much attention was directed at I.E. hurting consumers and 
competitors I will never know. No modern OS would be complete 
without a web browser. In addition, I.E. is a fantastic product that 
provides features and functionality that have always surpassed any 
other products on the market. Please accept this document into 
record as evidence of one consumer, developer and taxpayer who 
agrees with settlement hopes to see the case come to a close.
    Sincerely,
    John Warner Lewin
    CC:[email protected]@inet
gw



MTC-00028336

From: Ajay Ramachandran
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Hello,
    I wanted to write saying that the current settlement in the case 
seems to be a reasonable one. While I understand that some changes 
might be necessary I think it very important that the consumers be 
the ones who gain from any settlement or settlement modification. In 
this regard specifically it just does not make sense to entertain 
other competitor wishes, they really ought to work with their 
customers to provide better products for them instead of attacking 
Microsoft,
    Sincerely,
    Ajay S. Ramachandran,
    Redmond, WA.



MTC-00028337

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm writing to express my reservations about the proposed 
settlement of the anti-trust case between the United States (as 
represented by the Justice department) and Microsoft Corporation. I 
speak as a concerned citizen with broad and significant computing 
experience. I've used computers in various capacities for over 
twenty years and have worked with half a dozen different operating 
system families, including the complete Microsoft family of products 
from MS-DOS to XP. I also have wide experience with many computer 
applications from both Microsoft and other parties.
    I have provided network and systems administration of Microsoft 
and Linux systems on a part-time basis and rely on secure and stable 
computing environments in my primary occupation as a research and 
development consultant to startup medical device companies.
    The proposed settlement offers insufficient redress of 
Microsoft's previous wrongs and provides too little protection from 
this company's ongoing anti-competitive practices. While a just 
settlement should address Microsoft's past practices, I am more 
concerned that a settlement provide adequate protection to 
consumers, competitors, and indeed the economy as a whole, from

[[Page 28252]]

Microsoft's ongoing and likely future anti-competitive practices.
    With the release of it's latest, highly-integrated operating 
system product, XP, Microsoft has demonstrated that it has no 
intention of voluntarily curbing the sorts of predatory anti-
competitive practices that have enabled it prosper at the expense of 
competitors and consumers alike. In my experience, succeeding 
generations of Microsoft operating system products have integrated 
increasing numbers of middleware applications, and the configuration 
tools needed to replace these applications with third party products 
have become more obscure and less effective, locking many consumers 
into a monolithic, Microsoft-only environment.
    The lack of choice implied by Microsoft's monolithic model of 
computing is contrary to the workings of free market enterprise and 
is ultimately harmful to consumers. It is apparent that this trend 
has the goal of maintaining and expanding Microsoft's dominant 
position in the desktop computing marketplace.
    The unnecessarily tight integration of middleware applications 
into its operating system products is far from the only illegitimate 
tool that Microsoft has used to dominate the desktop market in the 
United States. Microsoft has plausibly been accused of: extorting 
exclusive installation of its products on computers by OEM 
manufacturers via differential pricing, of corrupting open software 
standards to gain exclusive access to important domains of 
computing, and waging so-called FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) 
campaigns against competitors and consumers. An appropriate 
settlement would address not only the particulars of continued 
forced, artificial integration of its products but as many of the 
other tools against free competition that Microsoft has been using 
as is possible. It is bad public policy and poor economics to allow 
a single entity to maintain its position in the marketplace via 
unfair and illegal practices. Among the particular adverse effects 
of Microsoft's continued anti-competitive behavior are: stifled 
innovation, corruption of the marketplace, deterioration of the 
United State's position in the world's information technology 
economy and unnecessary security vulnerabilities.
    Though Microsoft claims to be a leader in innovation, the record 
suggests that it is instead a follower (or perhaps a gatekeeper) of 
innovation. The Netscape saga illustrates this point. Microsoft 
failed to take the internet and its potential seriously until web's 
usefulness and the great value of effective browser technology were 
demonstrated by Netscape. Once Netscape was too successful to 
ignore, Microsoft used all of the anti-competitive tools at its 
disposal to neutralize Netscape. If Microsoft is allowed to escape 
effective punishment for this infraction, it will continue its 
current practices and will be a brake on rather than an engine of 
innovation. This result would be a loss for everyone, except perhaps 
Microsoft.
    The stifling of innovation is just one of many symptoms of the 
market distortion created by Microsoft's all too effective use of 
anti-competitive tactics. There are a number of other ills created 
by this induced market failure, the most obvious of which are 
increased prices and lower product quality. Indeed, Microsoft has 
managed to defy the trends toward lower price and higher quality 
that typify all other aspects of the computer industry. As hardware 
has become ever more capable and less expensive, the cost of the 
software provided by Microsoft has remained high and improvements in 
quality have been slow and ``grudging'' at best. An 
overall effect of these opposing trends has been that Microsoft has 
been able to garner an increasing, and I would say, excessive 
fraction of every dollar spent on computers. Microsoft is richly 
rewarded by the market distortions that it has been able to 
engineer. It is time for these distortions to come to an end, and 
for the market to freely assert itself. Then the winners will be not 
only the consumers, who will get better quality at a lower price, 
but other hardware and software producers who will be able to 
command a more equitable share of the revenues from their products.
    In the long run, Microsoft's illegitimate domination of the 
domestic information technology (IT) market threatens the United 
States'' preeminent position in the international IT 
marketplace. Though Microsoft has a global reach, it is clear that 
its market power is neither as pervasive nor as potent as it is 
domestically. Because these overseas markets are less burdened by 
Microsoft's stifling anti-competitive practices, they can be more 
efficient and innovative. If this disparity is allowed to persist, 
it is likely that the United states will suffer an erosion of its 
now strong position in the world IT economy. The best way for the 
United States to prevent this deterioration is to open the domestic 
market to free and fair competition by preventing Microsoft from 
exerting its anti-competitive tools to distort the domestic IT 
market.
    Microsoft has a history of using its market dominance to gloss 
over security problems with its products. Rather than act quickly to 
patch and publicize its security vulnerabilities, Microsoft uses all 
means at its disposal to suppress news of and information about its 
security problems. This ``security through obscurity'' 
approach is well know to be one of the worst possible responses to 
computer security problems; it leaves the computing community open 
to security problems for much longer than is necessary. It is 
typical for weeks or even months to pass between the discovery of a 
Microsoft security flaw and the company's issuance of a proper 
security patch. This poor security behavior is completely 
unacceptable in the face of the heightened security concerns 
following the events of September 11. Though Microsoft has recently 
paid lip service to improving the security of its products, it has 
shown no inclination to replace its antiquated and dangerous 
security model with a more open, proactive and effective model. 
Indeed, its recently issued code of security ethics for Microsoft 
professionals calls for strict adherence to the security through 
obscurity model. This code dictates that these professionals'' 
paying customers be kept in the dark regarding security 
vulnerabilities until such time as Microsft deems it appropriate to 
reveal the problem. Microsoft's bad citizenship in regard to 
security is dangerous and should not be tolerated. A properly 
formulated settlement of the current case should include measures to 
force Microsoft to follow a more appropriate security model.
    Microsoft's anti-competitive practices are not merely 
illegitimate and contrary to the principles of market capitalism and 
free enterprise, they greatly harm the American people in a 
significant number of concrete ways. The proposed settlement fails 
to address these ills in any meaningful sense. It needs to be 
reformulated to provide appropriate and strong protection of the 
market and the people from Microsoft's rapacious and 
counterproductive practices. A strong and effective settlement would 
not only serve the cause of justice, it would preserve an important 
sector of the United States'' economy from unnecessary harm.
    It is imperative that the Justice department act in a wise and 
decisive manner and prevent Microsoft from continuing to isolate 
itself from market discipline via unfair and illegitimate means.
    Michael Satteson,
    St. Paul, MN
    [email protected]



MTC-00028337--;0004



MTC-00028338

From: Leonard Bernstein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:26pm
Subject: RE: Microsoft settlement
    Please accept the Microsoft settlement and bring this matter to 
closure.
    Thank you,
    Leonard Bernstein


MTC-00028339

From: j rim
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    I object to the so-called Proposed Final Judgment in to 
Microsoft case.
    As every one knows, Microsoft continues to violate anti-trust 
laws set in place many years ago. The Proposed Final Judgment goes 
against all logic. Previously the US Court, has found Microsoft 
guilty of breaking the anti-trust laws. However, under the proposed 
final settlement, MS is permitted to retain most of its profits 
gained through their illegal activities. The PFJ will not compensate 
parties injured by the Microsoft debacle.
    The PFJ does not take into account all Microsoft gains made 
through its illegal maneuverings. The final settlement basically 
acknowledges the acceptance of Microsofts anti-competitive behavior. 
What kind of message does this send out to the public? Do you think 
the public will be in favor of such a move?
    The PFJ encourages big corporations to engage in monopolistic 
and predatory conduct, which in turn is detrimental to the 
technology industry at large. With all due respect your honor, I am 
outraged at such a preposterous proposal that only helps Microsoft 
to remain intact and continue with its unethical practices. Thus, I 
object to this

[[Page 28253]]

Proposed Final Judgment. It solves nothing in the matter.
    Sincerely,
    Simplicio, Tualla Jr.
    8959 Tam OShanter Dr.
    Stockton, CA 95210



MTC-00028340

From: 
[email protected]@in
etgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
2185 W 6410 N
Brigham City, UT 84302
January 25,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    For nearly four years now, the Microsoft antitrust case has been 
mired in the federal courts. Finally, after six months of 
negotiation, Microsoft and the Department of Justice were able to 
reach an agreement, and in November, their settlement was proposed. 
That settlement is currently pending approval. Next week, the courts 
will reconvene and determine whether the settlement serves the best 
public interest. I ask you, Mr. Ashcroft to support the finalization 
of the settlement.
    Microsoft and the Justice Department have agreed on a wide 
variety of terms and conditions, all of which are aimed at 
preventing monopolistic behavior and restoring a competitive balance 
within the technology market. For example, Microsoft has agreed not 
to enter into any contracts wherein a third party is compelled to 
distribute or endorse Microsoft software either exclusively or at a 
fixed percentage. Microsoft also plans to reformat future versions 
of Windows so that competitors will be able to introduce their own 
products directly into the Windows operating system. This will 
enable computer makers and software developers to use Microsoft as a 
springboard to launch their own software.
    I do not believe that further action against Microsoft needs to 
be taken on the federal level. In fact, it is likely that extended 
litigation could be detrimental to an already damaged economy. I ask 
you to support the finalization of the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Jason Walker



MTC-00028341

From: Rick Deno
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov.''
Date: 1/28/02 2:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Lets'' do what is good for the Country and put this 
litigation behind us.
    Time to MOVE ON! I know, AOL and other competitors of Microsoft 
would love to have Microsoft destroyed, broken up, have all there 
software coding made public, and all there money taken away. After 
all, there main crime was competing and being better and smarter 
than everyone else. Whatever crime thy did commit had nothing to do 
with them being successful. The Public chose them over Apple, and 
many other Operating Systems years age because the provided a great 
produce that worked with a lot of different hardware, which allowed 
the price of a PC to be affordable. They and there work has only 
benefited the public, the US economy, and most of Microsoft's 
competitors. After all, Where would AOL be today if no Microsoft? Do 
we want to distort the marketplace and get rid of Microsoft? What 
does this tell the next Microsoft? Don't be too successful or the 
government will get rid of you. Is this what the free enterprise 
system is all about? A monopoly is the result of good business moves 
against bad business moves. This is All about Microsoft's 
competitors wanting the Government (States and Federal) to do what 
they couldn't, which is compete.
    Thanks,
    Richard Deno



MTC-00028342

From: The Young Family
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
--;--;- Original Message --;--;-
From: Microsoft's Freedom To Innovate Network 

To: 
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 2:03 PM
Subject: Attorney General John Ashcroft Letter
    Attached is the letter we have drafted for you based on your 
comments. Please review it and make changes to anything that does 
not represent what you think. If you received this letter by fax, 
you can photocopy it onto your business letterhead; if the letter 
was emailed, just print it out on your letterhead. Then sign and fax 
it to the Attorney General. We believe that it is essential to let 
our Attorney General know how important this issue is to their 
constituents. The public comment period for this issue ends on 
January 28th. Please send in your letter as soon as is convenient.
    When you send out the letter, please do one of the following: * 
Fax a signed copy of your letter to us at 
1-;800-;641-;2255; * Email us at 
[email protected] to confirm that you 
took action.
    If you have any questions, please give us a call at 
1-;800-;965-;4376. Thank you for your help in this 
matter.
    The Attorney General's fax and email are noted below.
    Fax: 1-;202-;307-;1454 or 
1-;202-;616-;9937
    Email: [email protected]
    In the Subject line of the e-mail, type Microsoft Settlement.
    For more information, please visit these websites: 
www.microsoft.com/freedomtoinnovate/ www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-
settle.htm
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The Department of Justice and Microsoft have finally reached a 
decision ending the three-year-long antitrust suit against the 
company. I want to add my support to this settlement. It has gone on 
for far too long. We are trying very hard to come out of a economic 
downturn, which I think was precipitated by the lawsuit, and we need 
to focus on more important matters than nitpicking over what should 
be the final decision in the Microsoft lawsuit.
    Microsoft has also been more than accommodating with the demands 
from the Justice Department. Microsoft has agreed to a technical 
committee to oversee future compliance (consisting of software 
engineers, not lawyers); Microsoft has agreed to a uniform price 
list; Microsoft has agreed to internal interface disclosure; 
Microsoft has agreed to open the company up to third party 
innovation. This is more than fair.
    I urge you to give your support to this agreement.
    Sincerely,
    Melvin Young
    22 Club Drive
    illicothe, OH 45601



MTC-00028343

From: Cheryl Stearn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    Microsoft's behavior is such that due to their size and 
capitalization, they can and will dominate any market they choose. 
Recently, they decided to compete directly with their 
``Microsoft Partners'', firms who integrate and install 
Microsoft networks by essentially offering the same technical 
services that firms such as ours do. It is only in the last couple 
of weeks that Microsoft has rescinded their push to compete with us, 
primarily, I belive, because they would like us to support them in 
their fight with the Department of Justice. If this letter is read 
by Microsoft, I am sure that our business involving their products 
is toast.
    The settlement with Microsoft is a joke. If anything it will 
tighten Microsoft's hold on the computer market, increase prices and 
make the US less competitive in the world market.
    Sincerely,
    Cheryl Stearn
    Partner
    P.S. Signed pdf document attached
    cheryl--;[email protected]



MTC-00028344

From: Woody McLendon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    comments
January 28, 2002
    To Whom it May Concern,
    I am writing to express my very strong concern about the nature 
of the settlement proposal in the DOJ case against Microsoft. I 
believe that the settlement has major flaws and will do nothing to 
limit Microsoft in its future attempts to quash competitors in the 
IT industry.
    My work is in IT for a non-profit organization. I use computers 
daily, including Microsoft products. I do not think Microsoft is 
``evil'' but I am greatly

[[Page 28254]]

concerned that the company has shown an ongoing history of using its 
monopoly position to overtake and overwhelm competitors. Microsoft's 
``shadow'' on the software and IT industry is huge. They 
have the ability to out-spend and out-last almost all of their 
competitors, and if they don't do that, they try to buy them out. 
With their new products such as Windows XP, Xbox game console, 
PocketPC handheld computers, they continue the same behavior.
    I am not a person that usually writes letters such as this, but 
because of my involvement in the IT industry and the importance for 
the future, I felt compelled to write. The recent events with Enron 
only highlight more fully to me that the US Government has a 
definite oversight responsibility in industry. I do not believe that 
market forces alone will protect against abuse. Microsoft has been 
found to be a monopoly that misuses its position to protect and grow 
its markets. That behavior must be stopped. Please reconsider the 
decision and make strong, enforceable structural changes in 
Microsoft for the good of consumers and the industry. The US 
Government dealt with monopolistic issues with IBM and the industry 
did not disappear. Neither did IBM. I believe that the entire 
computer industry will be better off with a stronger penalty for 
Microsoft.
    Sincerely yours,
    William W. McLendon, Jr.
    7905 Agape Lane
    Waxhaw, NC 28173
    [email protected]



MTC-00028345

From: Robert Lancaster
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:30pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    In regard to the settlement between Microsoft Corporation and 
the Department of Justice: On the findings of the District Court and 
the Court of Appeal, the settlement is no more than a gift from the 
DOJ to Microsoft, giving it the right and power to continue its 
monopolistic and predatory practices in spite of the above- 
mentioned legal judgements. In fact, its monopoly power would be 
effectively increased by the failure to require anything which would 
restrict the ability of XP, Hailstorm, and Microsoft's other current 
releases to control the user's access to the Internet and the World 
Wide Web and prevent any other competing innovative products from 
obtaining a foothold. A radical modification of what appears to be a 
shameful collusion to allow Microsoft to continue business as usual 
in defiance of the legal judgements of the courts is imperative for 
the continuance of free development, innovation, and 
entrepreneurship in this country (and even to some extent in the 
developed world).
    Robert Lancaster
    145 Fairview Lane, Paso Robles, CA



MTC-00028346

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:31pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
To the Department of Justice:
1/28/02
    I strongly believe that Microsoft and the American public 
deserve a fair, equitable, and timely settlement of the Microsoft 
dispute. Microsoft is the firm that ``got their first'' 
and through their innovative technologica and economic skills built 
the business that exists today. The entire technological industry is 
exploding now and growth has it's own momentum. Much of it is due to 
Microsoft that got the ball rolling. Now is the time to quit the 
haggling and let Microsoft get on with its business, unencumbered by 
repeated challenges.
    I became a small stockholder in the 1980's because my intuition 
told me they were on track. They had the key that opened the door 
then, and I believe they still are a wonderful example of American 
ingenuity in an open market. Have me become a nation that punishes 
the successful? I hope not.
    Sincerely,
    Rose Musacchio
    52 Bader Avenue
    Gowanda,NY 14070



MTC-00028347

From: 
[email protected]@i
netgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:31pm
Subject: Supporting microsoft
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express to you my approval of the recent 
settlement in the antitrust dispute between Microsoft and the 
Department of Justice. The economy needed this settlement. The 
decline in the stock market began with the attacks on Microsoft.
    I sincerely hope litigation on any level is terminated. Thank 
you for your time and please put me down in favor of the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Mona Abele
    Marietta, OH



MTC-00028348

From: Tom O'Toole
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:33pm
Subject: To the District Court: Microsoft Antitrust case...
January 28, 2002
Honorable Court Officials,
    I am writing today because I have been made aware of the Tunney 
Act permitting public comment on the proposed settlement between the 
U.S. Department of Justice and Microsoft Corp.
    I strongly believe that the proposed settlement does little or 
nothing to curb the anticompetitive practices of which Microsoft has 
been found guilty. In particular, the settlement doesn't resolve the 
issue of software bundling, which is a fundamental part of the case 
against Microsoft. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, 
Microsoft will essentially be given carte blache to include whatever 
software components they desire into the Windows system which is 
pre-installed on approximately 90% of computer systems sold, and 
which has been shown to have a monopoly market. This permits them to 
continue to use their operating system monopoly to create monopolies 
in new markets, directly counter to antitrust law.
    Microsoft has, in the face of legal action, monopolized the 
internet browser market, and is in the process of creating a 
monopoly in audio-visual software with Windows Media Player. The new 
Windows XP operating system requires users to register with 
Microsoft. This is just the first part of a plan to maintain a 
comprehensive database of almost all computer users. It will then be 
used to monopolize internet commerce using the .NET and Passport 
services being deployed by Microsoft. This is all being done with 
blithe disregard to the antitrust findings made by the U.S. court. 
This attitude (being above the law) was plainly evident in the 
demeanor of Bill Gates during the trial. Microsoft has preferred to 
spend vast quantities of money to make the case go away, mostly 
playing a game of delaying tactics. I feel this settlement gives 
them exactly what they want, and is antithetical to any concept of 
fairness.
    Microsoft will probably try to ``stuff the ballot 
box'' with comments in favor of the settlement. It is a well 
known Microsoft tactic to use pseudo-'grassroots'' marketing 
efforts on internet newsgroups and bulletin boards, and I expect 
them to do that in this instance. I urge the court to see through 
this underhanded scheme and make a decision based on logic, 
precedent and fairness.
    I am a computer user who uses several different systems: 
Macintosh, Linux and Windows, and I am deeply concerned about the 
future and what choices we consumers will have. Thank you very much 
for your time. I'm confident you will do the right thing.
    Tom O'Toole
    5885 El Cajon Blvd. #317
    San Diego, CA 92115
    [email protected]



MTC-00028349

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:33pm
Subject: Re: MS Settlement
    Dear Madam:
    The communication below states far more ably than I the reason 
the proposed DOJ/MS settlement is so objectionable. It simpley will 
not break the monopoly. If there is anti-trust law, if anti-trust 
law applies to MS and since MS has violated anti-trust law, then how 
will the proposed settlement break MS monopoly. It simpley will not.
    James Sturdevant
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Date: January 28, 2002
To: Renata B. Hesse Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
Email: [email protected]
(Note: In the Subject line of the e-mail,
type Microsoft Settlement.) Fax 1-;202-;307-;1454 or 
1-;202-;616-;9937
From: Ralph Nader
P.O. Box 19312
Washington, DC 20036
James Love
Consumer Project on Technology
P.O. Box 19367
Washington, DC 20036

[[Page 28255]]

    Introduction
    Having examined the proposed consent final judgment for USA 
versus Microsoft, we offer the following 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 to see a move away 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 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 be 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 for 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 Microsoft, and as is indicated by the record in this case, 
Microsoft can and does take advantage of any loopholes in contracts 
to create barriers to competition and enhance and extend its 
monopoly power.
    Special Concerns for Free Software Movement The provisions in 
J.1 and J.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 Internet 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 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/
0-;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 property 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,''1 leading to a round of new 
stories, including for example this account in CNET.Com:
    http://news.cnet.com/news/
0-;1003-;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 cast 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 A1 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 if a 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 product that is not considered 
to be current technology is to buy a brand-new full license. 
``''

[[Page 28256]]

    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.1 and J.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 anticompetitive abuses.
    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.
    Failure to address Ill 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 breakers? 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. [email protected]



MTC-00028349 0007



MTC-00028350

From: Scott Shriver
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I hope it's not too late to voice my objection to any plan 
requiring Microsoft to provide computers to schools as part of a 
settlement in the
    DOJ's antitrust suit against the corporation.
    As the computer lab supervisor in an Ohio middle school, I never 
thought I'd see the day when I'd turn down the possibility of free 
computer equipment or software. We sure could use whatever 
assistance may be provided in our goal of increasing student access 
to computers and the Internet. The substantial costs of modern 
technology makes it difficult to provide quality technology 
instruction in any but the most affluent schools. I know the 
objective is to penalize Microsoft in a way that helps our nation 
succeed in reforming and invigorating our public school system, but 
as well-meaning and obvious as this solution may seem, to give such 
a ``gift'' of computers will create several potential 
difficulties.
    I have used ``Wintel'' computers for many years and 
have only recently replaced worn-out machines with comparable Apple 
iMac computers. I have used identical software on both machines and 
find that the Macintosh is far easier to instruct with and keep 
running. Maintenance and troubleshooting time has been slashed. 
Networking, even between Macintosh and Windows machines has never 
been easier. Our school is now reaching the conclusion of a long 
process of migrating to the Mac platform.
    Apple has worked hard, I am sure to maintain a niche in the 
education market and has rebounded from recent economic problems. 
They would have difficulty competing with a company that is 
literally giving away their products to schools. The proposed 
settlement will cost Microsoft some money, to be sure. But the gains 
made by the company as it seeks to make inroads into the education 
sector will, I believe, more than make up for the heartburn of 
giving away product. In fact, I would liken this settlement solution 
to Brer Rabbit's briar patch: they may complain about the cost, but 
they would relish the opportunity to get away with a forced increase 
in marketshare. It is my

[[Page 28257]]

opinion that to provide any settlement to Microsoft which would 
erode Apple's ability to continue to provide great service and 
equipment to the education market does a disservice to the 
corporation as well as to schools.
    Couldn't Microsoft be asked to provide either free technology OR 
a comparable amount of money that might be used to purchase 
technology of choice for the schools?
    Thank you for your time and attention.
    Very sincerely,
    R. Scott Shriver
    R. Scott Shriver
    Talawanda Middle School voice: 513.523.1989
    4030 Oxford-Reily Road fax: 513.523.5144
    Oxford, OH 45056-;8943 email:
    [email protected]



MTC-00028351

From: E F
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    I honorably object to the Proposed Final Judgment in the 
Microsoft case. There are several flaws with in the final proposal. 
One noticeable error is keeping Microsoft intact and not severely 
admonishing them for violating anti-trust laws. Another apparent 
defect entails the ineptitude to establish an effective mechanism 
that implements restrictions or regulations on MS.
    As stated in the proposed settlement, Microsoft must comply with 
restrictions encompassed in the agreement. A three man compliance 
team will oversee and insure that Microsoft comply with the stated 
rules and regulations. Taking a closer look however, this three-man 
oversight team will be composed of the following: one appointee from 
the Justice Department, one appointee from Microsoft, and another 
appointee chosen by the two existing members. In turn, Microsoft 
will control half of the oversight team.
    Yet, in the likelihood of any enforcement proceeding, all 
findings by the oversight committee will not be allowed into court. 
The sole purpose of the committee is to inform the Justice 
Department of all infractions by Microsoft. Subsequently the Justice 
Depart will launch its own investigation into the matter and 
commence litigation to halt all infractions.
    What does this all mean? Translation- the oversight committee 
purely is an absentee landlord, who will not scrutinize Microsofts 
business dealings. Therefore in all fairness, the Proposed Final 
Judgment does not sufficiently provide the appropriate restrictions 
or penalties placed on Microsoft. What reassurance do we have that 
Microsoft will not continue to abuse it monopoly position and break 
the anti-trust laws? I can assure you that the Proposed Final 
Judgment will not effectively address the question in this matter. 
Therefore I respectfully submit to the court my objection to this 
Proposed Final Judgment.
    Sincerely,
    Eric Fontanilla
    1855 Baring Blvd Apt 2105
    Sparks, NV 89434



MTC-00028352

From: Steve Bentley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I am writing this in regards to the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. I am against accepting the proposal as currently 
understood.
    Perhaps it is only my naivety that I continue to imagine that 
one of the roles of government is to protect the little guy from 
those more powerful then himself. In that vein, Microsoft is the 
bully on the block that us little people need government to step in 
and protect us from. The ``slap on the wrist'' provided by 
the settlement as currently proposed does not, in my view, do any 
more than say to Microsoft that it is acceptable to continue to be 
the bully on the block. This proposed settlement would be akin to 
telling the bully at school to give back 1 cent of every dollar 
extorted from your classmates, hardly a just penalty.
    Thank you for considering my arguments against accepting the 
proposal before you.
    Sincerely,
    Steve Bentley
    187 W Randall Ave.
    Norfolk, VA 23503
    (757) 583-;5919
    [email protected]



MTC-00028353

From: Mildred/Jerry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:33pm
Subject: 910 Hester Drive
910 Hester Drive
Harrison, AR 72601
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my support of the settlement reached 
between the Justice Department and Microsoft in the antitrust case 
in federal court.
    I am glad that this case is in its final stages. Microsoft and 
its competition have spent far too much time competing in court 
rather than in the marketplace. The case has drained resources on 
both sides for far too long and should be brought to an end as soon 
as possible.
    In order to foster greater competition and consumer choice, 
Microsoft has agreed to design future versions of Windows to provide 
a mechanism to make it easier for computer makers, consumers and 
software developers to promote non-Microsoft software within 
Windows. It is in the public's best interest to implement this 
agreement so that the industry and consumers can take advantage of 
the new opportunities for competition and choice.
    Sincerely,
    Jerry Roberts
    cc: Representative Bob Stump



MTC-00028354

From: FELLNER, CLAYTON
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 2:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I have used Microsoft products for many years. I want you to 
know that I believe their products are superior in many ways to 
their competitors. I enjoy the fact that many of their products are 
integrated into their operating system. This is a feature that is 
very useful for people like me, with little computer savvy.
    Even though I don't consider myself a technical wizard, I am by 
no means a hapless victim who cannot choose software that is useful 
to me. And I do not think that the government has any right to 
decide what can be in my computer. Also, I resent the idea that a 
successful business and its products are a threat to anyone, 
especially me.
    This antitrust case was brought about by Microsoft's whiny 
competitors, not disgruntled customers. Failed businesses must not 
be allowed to set the rules for the markets in which they failed. 
Continued application of the antitrust laws against successful 
businessmen can only lead to corruption and economic disaster as 
shown in many other countries.
    I want to see an America where success is not discouraged or 
punished, but embraced and held as a goal for others to reach for. I 
want a free America where anyone with enough intelligence and hard 
work can be a self-made man like Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates.
    And lastly, and most importantly, Microsoft has a fundamental 
right to its property. It is the government's job to protect this 
right, not to take it away.
    Regards,
    Clayton Fellner
    3813 Harrison Drive
    Carrollton, TX 75010
    CC:'activism(a)moraldefense.com''



MTC-00028355

From: Andrew Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is my belief the current proposed settlement with Microsoft 
is insufficient to punish Microsoft for illegally attempting to 
extend its desktop operating systems monopoly and to prevent it from 
re-attempting illegal activities in the future. While I believe an 
oversight board is necessary to ensure Microsoft's compliance with 
the court's ruling, I do not believe an oversight board alone is 
enough.
    In the past, Microsoft has used its control of proprietary 
protocols and application programming interfaces (APIs), and 
extensions to open protocols and APIs, to prevent third party 
software from interacting properly with Windows. This has forced 
users wanting to use these protocols with Windows to use other 
Microsoft software, rather than third party software. It is also 
clear Microsoft intends to use similar tactics to establish a lock 
on Internet traffic and e-commerce through its control of .NET/
HailStorm, MSN, and its other online properties. By causing Windows 
to require use of Microsoft online properties such as Passport, and 
building hooks to other

[[Page 28258]]

Microsoft online properties into Windows, Microsoft hopes extend its 
desktop operating system monopoly to control the Web sites a user 
sees and uses on the Internet. Businesses trying to reach consumers 
via the Internet will have to do business with Microsoft or lose a 
vast majority of their audience.
    I propose two additions to the settlement that will hopefully 
deny Microsoft the ability to illegally extend their current 
monopoly into new markets while allowing the company to retain its 
current monopoly and its ability to innovate:
    (1) Require Microsoft to publish all of its proprietary 
application programming interfaces (APIs) and protocols, and require 
its software to comply with published protocols. By forcing 
Microsoft to publish all of its proprietary protocols and APIs, the 
settlement would ensure non-Windows software could interoperate 
freely with Windows desktop software. Microsoft would also be 
required to comply with public specifications from third parties, 
since it has ``embraced and extended'' public protocols in 
the past in such a way as to prevent users from using third party 
software with Windows. The oversight board, in addition to ensuring 
Microsoft publishes all of its protocols and APIs, would monitor 
Microsoft for compliance with its own standards and standards 
published by others. It would receive and investigate complaints 
from third parties questioning the corporation's compliance, and 
take appropriate action if Microsoft was found to be incorrectly 
implementing standards to lock users into using only Microsoft 
software.
    (2) Require Microsoft to divest MSN and its other online 
properties, and bar it from owning online services in the future. 
This will prevent Microsoft from using its desktop monopoly to gain 
a monopoly on Internet traffic in general and Internet-based e-
commerce in specific. Microsoft would be free to develop innovative 
new software solutions, but would be unable to use them to coerce 
users to use its online services only. Adding these provisions to 
the Microsoft anti-trust settlement will both tangibly punish 
Microsoft for attempting to illegally extend its monopoly and help 
prevent it from doing the same in the future. Microsoft's monopoly 
in desktop operating systems would remain intact, as well as 
Microsoft's freedom to innovate. These measures would force the 
corporation to be a good industry citizen by denying it the 
capability to take advantage of its desktop operating system 
monopoly to dominate other markets.
    Thank you for your time and consideration.
    Lawrence Andrew Johnson
    [email protected]



MTC-00028356

From: Cheeseater
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kotelly,
    I have been informed that you have the responsibility of 
reviewing the Microsoft antitrust case. I wanted to take a second of 
your time to express my opinion on this matter. As many know, the 
Microsoft Corporation has been trying to corner the computer market 
for nearly a decade. This latest move in attempting to get what is 
essentially a governmental exemption from antitrust laws. Please do 
all you can to stop this abuse of our justice system and to help us 
retain our free market system. Competition is vital to our survival 
as a nation. Please don't let Microsoft have their way with us and 
our government. Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Adam S. Hammill
    1247 W. 30th St. #117
    Los Angeles, CA 90007
    (323) 733-;5381
    CC:[email protected]@
inetgw



MTC-00028357

From: Tom Ulrich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Case Concerns
    Please see the attached letter with comments and concerns.
    Thank you.
    Tom Ulrich
    Arthur N. Ulrich Company
    [email protected]
    800-;848-;2090
1ARTHUR N. ULRICH COMPANY FAX 740-;927-;6017
10340 PALMER RD. S.W. PATASKALA, OHIO 43062 740-;927-;8244 
TOLL FREE
800-;848-;2090
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft
    Why is there hesitation in Washington to finalize the settlement 
in the Microsoft case? The cost to the taxpayers of this nation for 
the government's attacks on one of our nation's most successful 
companies has been enormous. Not only have we funded what appears to 
be a vindictive attack via our tax dollars; we have watched billions 
or trillions of dollars in value evaporate from our personal 
investments, our profit sharing programs, and our retirement and 
mutual funds as the market values of Microsoft and other technology 
related firms fell precipitously as a direct result of the 
government's illogical efforts.
    I'm just a middle class American and a small time investor, but 
the losses on just the 200 shares of Microsoft stock I owned was 
nearly equivalent to one-year s tuition and board for my daughter at 
Miami University. That is not an insignificant amount to me, and it 
is the Justice Department I have viewed though this process as the 
``enemy'' of the consumer, not Microsoft! The posturing of 
the Department and that of many state attorney generals lining up 
for their ``dibs'' reminds me a bunch of blood sucking 
parasites.
    My suspicion is that there must be BIG MONEY SPECIAL INTERESTS 
that prodded the original investigations and that must continue to 
do so, and that disturbs me. In a market economy, the government 
generally should not take ``sides'' in commercial and 
marketing issues Letting Microsoft get back to business would 
significantly help end the recession; spending tax money on more 
litigation certainly would not help the national recovery.
    I run a small business and have been a Microsoft user since the 
mid-80s. I have been using Microsoft not because they were a 
monopoly holding a gun to my head, but because they have created 
decent and useful products. We don't use them for all our needs; and 
in fact use Novell and IBM/Lotus for our networking requirements 
because of their features and benefits. I don't like their latest 
activation'' policies on XP products, but not once have I felt 
``trapped'' or ``manipulated'' into having to 
buy, use or upgrade Microsoft products.
    Please--;can't we, for the public good, just get this case 
over with, and let Microsoft and others in the industry get back to 
the business of computers.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Ulrich
    cc: Senator Mike DeWine



MTC-00028358

From: thunderhawk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:37pm
Subject: Microsoft settelment
Dennis C. Daggett
363 Center Road
Lopez Island, WA 98261-;8298
Jnauary 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing today to encourage the Department of Justice to 
accept the Microsoft antitrust settelment. The issue was brought 
about by the former administration that simply did not understand 
the technology industry. They ignored one of the things that makes 
our country the best in the world, our free enterprise system. Then 
to top it all off, they extended their socialistic philosophy to 
apply antiquated antitrust laws to a band new industry.
    In the free market, Microsoft rose to the top because they had 
the best products. Their products are user friendly and Microsoft 
has made them very easy to integrate and at lower cost than the 
alternitives. It is no wonder that where people had a choice most 
choose Microsoft software. Under the terms of the settelment 
Microsoft has agreed to allow computer makers the flexibility to 
install and promote any software they see fit. Microsoft has also 
agreed not to enter into any agreement that would require a computer 
maker to use a fixed percentage of Microsoft software. I beleive 
that computer makers will continue to predominatly pre install 
Microsoftware because it is the best and most computer buyers will 
chose a Microsoft windows based computer when making a new perchase. 
This is not a monoply problem, Microsft simply is, supplying a 
better product and most people know it.
    My experiance as supervisor of an electric power generation 
plant for over 15 years, offered me the oppertunity to try many 
brands of computer software products and computer equipment. What I 
found over time

[[Page 28259]]

was that even when cost was not a consideration, products that were 
not Microsft based, did not perform satisfactorly. Microsoft 
products and windows based computers were simply the best. On top of 
that we experianced significant savings over other options. Sure 
Microsoft has made a lot of money, but can you imagine the cost to 
the people of our nation if Microsoft and all they have provided for 
us vanished or had never existed? This is my plea for justice in our 
mecanized and technological society. Microsoft has gotten to where 
they are by developing better products, not by crushing their 
competitors.
    This suit and the fact it has gone on for over three years is 
simply mind-boggling. It is time to end it. DO NOT PUNISH MICROSOFT 
FOR BEING BETTER. Please acept the Microsoft antitrust settelment.
    Sincerely,
    Dennis C. Daggett



MTC-00028359

From: Jason Irwin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a concerned citizen who does not think that Microsoft 
should have been granted the Proposed Final Judgment by the Justice 
Department. Please review these proceedings so that Microsoft will 
not have a monopoly. There are laws in place to ensure that there 
are not monopolies in business in the US and I think they should be 
abided by.
    Jason Irwin
    510 Irving Ave
    San Jose, CA 95128
    408-;977-;1512
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00028360

From: Helen Bauch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Food Smarts
1119 S. Mission Rd.
Fallbrook, CA 92028
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    For over three years the Department of Justice and the Microsoft 
Corporation have been pouring millions of dollars down the drain due 
to court costs. The antitrust suit that was filed against Microsoft 
has not only cost these two entities millions, but look at what 
happened to the market after the suit was launched. The suit has 
cost more than millions, just look at the recession that it has 
partially caused.
    Although the suit should have never been initiated to begin 
with, I am relieved to see that a settlement has been reached. The 
settlement is the best thing that could have happened to the 
antitrust case, and it will benefit the economy. Microsoft's 
competitors can now produce and ship software that competes with 
Microsoft's, and will not have to worry about Microsoft trying to 
prevent that. They have agreed not to retaliate against competitors, 
which is a move that will boost competition and result in an overall 
better product. This will encourage people to hit the stores, which 
will push up the economy. Everyone wins.
    I support this settlement, and urge you to implement as soon as 
possible.
    Sincerely,
    Helen Bauch
    cc: Representative Darrell Issa
    Helen Bauch
    Food Smarts
    1119 S. Mission Rd. PMB317
    Fallbrook, CA 92028-;3225
    (760) 731-;9911 FAX (760) 731-;9922



MTC-00028361

From: Paul Tait
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
26484 Carrington Boulevard
Perrysburg, OH 43551
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am what you is usually called a ``head hunter''. I 
try to find qualified personnel for companies. I therefore have a 
good idea of how the business world is doing, or not doing. 
Unfortunately, it is not doing very well, and I put much of the 
blame for this on the antitrust suit brought against Microsoft. This 
case was totally unwarranted. All these firms started out on the 
same playing field.
    Microsoft is a firm that created a product that people wanted. 
Bill Gates standardized computer software, allowing the average 
person to understand computers, and computer programs. There was no 
need to have five different programs to do a spreadsheet. Bill Gates 
simply was the best at giving the consumer what they wanted.
    Microsoft has been more than accommodating to the Department of 
Justice's demands. Microsoft has agreed to a technical committee to 
oversee future adherence; Microsoft has agreed to grant computer 
makers broad new license to configure Windows as to promote non-
Microsoft software; Microsoft has agreed to terms that extend far 
beyond the products and procedures that were actually at issue in 
the original suit.
    Let's put this matter to rest. I urge you to give your support 
to this agreement. We need to help our country get beyond this 
pettiness.
    Sincerely,
    Paul M.Tait
    Consulting and Recruiting
    paulm--;[email protected]
    (419)874-;1500
    Perrysburg, Ohio 43551



MTC-00028362

From: Peter Schultz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    The current status of the Microsoft anti-trust case scares me.
    When I first got into computers it was 1995 and I thought 
Windows 95 would be the way to go. The price was better than Apple 
Macintosh and the whole platform seemed better for programmers. 
After a short time I became frustrated by the stability of Windows 
so I began searching for a better alternative.
    Then fortune struck! It was late 1996 and I was looking through 
a Macintosh related magazine when I came across an article about the 
BeBox by Be, Incorporated. This brand new and highly innovative 
computer had dual processors and ran the Be operating system, all of 
which was engineered from the ground up to be modern, or as they 
called it, a system for the next millennium. I hopped on the 
Internet right away and looked into buying one of these BeBoxes and 
found to my surprise that I could get one for a very good price. 
This system made me happy because I never had any mysterious system 
problems that required me to waste my time reinstalling as I had 
done many times with Windows.
    Soon thereafter BeOS was up and running on Intel compatible 
computers and being a total computer geek I had always wanted a 
laptop computer. So in 1998 I purchased a Dell Inspiron 3000, which 
I had figured would be able to run BeOS. I was right, Be had the 
resources to make this possible and I was able to stay current with 
their latest developments.
    There is an alternate side to this Dell computer. It was 
purchased only weeks before Windows 98 was released yet I did not 
get any credit for the purchase and was given an ugly hacked version 
of Windows 95 that made it look like Windows 98. Here's another 
reason I'm very upset by Microsoft. To my absolute horror this 
unstable factory installation only lasted about a week before I had 
to do a clean install of Windows! You'll note that this is the one 
of the disputed factors in the antitrust case, the tying in of 
Internet Explorer to Windows 95 is not only a questionable business 
practice, but it made my brand new very expensive computer a pile of 
junk.
    I called Dell about this and since it was a software problem 
they brushed it off. I then called Microsoft and before I even 
talked to an actual person I was informed that I would have to pay 
them money to even talk to anyone! I instantly hung up the phone and 
felt angry, sad, and helpless to this ugly situation. I thought to 
myself, ``why after having spent over $3000 am I being treated 
this way?'' It was at this time that I decided I did not agree 
with the Microsoft End User License Agreement and called Dell back 
to see about getting compensation for this. Dell told me it would 
not be possible.
    I eventually brushed it off because I was primarily a BeOS user 
and had great hope that Be would be able to continue developing 
their amazing OS. Unfortunately, Microsoft's stranglehold made it 
nearly impossible for BeOS to be installed on factory systems and 
now the result is that for all anyone knows, BeOS will never be 
updated again! Palm, Inc. has recently purchased the technology and 
there may be a chance that the public will see another version, but 
there's just no way to tell.

[[Page 28260]]

    Microsoft has steadily moved from shrewd business to leveraging 
everyone into doing what they want. As a computer science student 
and a part-time consultant I deal with Microsoft in some way 
everyday. This is not by choice! If I were to attempt to discontinue 
the use and/or support of Microsoft products I would be putting 
myself into obscurity. It might be a case where I won't be able to 
view important documents that are only readable by the latest 
version of Microsoft Office, or it might be that a web page is only 
designed to be viewed in Microsoft Internet Explorer. Ask any 
Macintosh user what would happen if these applications were not 
available for their platform.
    Microsoft is a massive corporation that has gone beyond mere 
profit and has long been in the business of screwing people over. 
Even as they have been on trial for being a monopoly they have been 
making their position stronger. They recently purchased Great Plains 
Software here in Fargo, North Dakota, and I'm sure it won't take 
long before they're dominating the small business software market.
    As a user who depends on computers for my livelihood I feel 
depressed about this, and I know that I'm not alone. This American 
company is making people across the entire planet feel as I do, 
please do something soon so that at the very least we can enjoy a 
good variety of platforms. My hope is that your decision will be 
such that Palm sees opportunity with BeOS and that other small truly 
innovative companies also see openings thereby giving users like me 
a choice. As for today the future of computing is gloomy, grayed 
over by the drab blanket that is Microsoft.
    Without your intervention I see absolutely no hope for small 
truly innovative companies like Be.
    Do not simply settle for handing power off to Apple; give it all 
back to the people. I want Microsoft to hurt as badly as they've 
hurt me.
    Sincerely,
    Peter Schultz
    1105 13th Ave. N #2
    Fargo, ND 58102



MTC-00028363

From: dave parsh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to give an opinion no the Microsoft case.
    Microsoft is a powerful, innovative company. The sould be 
congratulated on their success, not punished. In the United States, 
if we allow people to be creative and innovative then our society 
will be a better place. By restricting and punishing people for 
being excellent at what they do, people will be less inclined to 
take risks and improve our lives. Microsoft's success is at the 
heart of a capitalistic society. They must continue to innovate and 
produce new products or else they will fail as a business.
    They should not be punished for being successful.
    Dave Parsh



MTC-00028364

From: Jamie Folsom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a web developer for a public tv station, making web sites 
for kids, and in my professional work have seen much to be concerned 
about regarding Microsoft's business practices.
    Microsoft, in its business and technical decisions, has shown 
deep-rooted disregard for the openness of the internet, an engine of 
economic possibility, and has coopted standards ``for the 
benefit of competition/consumers/'', 
when it suits their purposes.
    The Microsoft money machine, a bulldozer in the rain forest of 
software diversity, must be kept in check, and companies, 
technologies and individuals inclined to contribute to this great 
new medium must be clearly told that their freedom, in the form of 
open, commonly owned standards, will be defended.
    Thanks
    Jamie Folsom
    [email protected]



MTC-00028365

From: Mark Moran
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I understand that Microsoft and the Department of Justice have 
decided to reach a settlement in the antitrust lawsuit that has been 
dragging on for the last three years. I never agreed with this case 
from the beginning, and I hope to see this settlement finalized in 
the near future.
    Settling now will only have positive effects on the industry as 
well as the economy. Microsoft will share information with its 
competitors regarding Windows, and redesign the operating system to 
allow other companies'' software to be placed within the 
system. Competition will increase and the consumers will see many 
more choices in the marketplace.
    Thank you for stopping this litigation. We need to put this case 
to rest so that Microsoft can get back to creating great products, 
and the government can focus its energies on more important issues.
    Sincerely,
    Mark Moran
    309 W. 109th St. #5F
    New York, NY 10025



MTC-00028366

From: J F
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    I am filing my personal objection to the proposed final judgment 
on the Microsoft case. Supposedly, the Court has found Microsoft 
guilty of violating all rules of proper business ethics and 
practices. However with the PFJ, the Department of Justice throws 
out, if not abandons all previous court findings that indicts 
Microsoft. In fact, the PFJ permits Microsoft to continue with its 
monopolistic and predatory practices, which in my opinion is a 
detriment not only to the software sector but also to the technology 
industry as a whole. Without a doubt, I strongly believe you will 
receive thousands of similar appeals encompassing the many flaws 
that are apparent in the proposed final settlement. My main focus 
entails one fundamental flaw clearly noticeable in the proposed 
settlement: The PFJ does not effectively break up Microsoft, but in 
fact allows Microsoft to leverage its current market position, or 
should I say, Monopoly to expand its business into several other 
technology markets. Under the general rule, most monopolies in the 
past, such as AT&T and Standard Oil, are either broken up or 
carefully regulated. However, Microsoft is given a pardon or a 
waiver to this general rule of thumb altogether. The implementation 
of reprimands by the Justice Department is not a cure-all to the MS 
calamity. As history has proven over and over again, Microsoft will 
undoubtedly abuse its monopoly position at the expense of others. 
Unless something extraordinary is done such as breaking up 
Microsofts business into several parts or meting out severe 
punishment, Microsoft will persistently continue to implement 
illegal business practices. I submit to the Court my rejection to 
the Proposed Final Judgment.
    All the Best,
    Jennifer Fontanilla
    Eric Fontanilla
    1855 Baring Blvd Apt 2105
    Sparks, NV 89434



MTC-00028367

From: Dave Walton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I urge you to reject the negotiated settlement with Microsoft.
    The only way I see that you can prevent monopolistic and anti-
competitive practices that have continued to this day is to separate 
the Applications and Operating Systems divisions of Microsoft into 
different companies. It is essential that their Application programs 
be ported to work with operating systems other than Windows.
    I am seriously concerned that representatives of our government 
could have negotiated a settlement with Microsoft that does nothing 
to punish them for the acts they have been found guilty of, and does 
nothing to prevent such acts in the future. I urge you to open all 
proceedings to public scrutiny so we can see just what transpired 
that allowed this to happen. I question the impartiality and 
motivations of those responsible.
    Thank You
    Dave Walton
    2986 Warrington Road
    Shaker Heights OH 44120
    216-;751-;6646
    [email protected]



MTC-00028368

From: Gregg Williams

[[Page 28261]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice:
    I am writing regarding the Microsoft settlement as someone with 
more-than-average credentials to have an opinion. From 1979 to 1988, 
I was Senior Editor of BYTE magazine, the personal computer 
industry's first major magazine. From 1988 to 1998, I worked for 
Apple Computer, where I wrote to third-party developers about the 
advantages of the Mac OS platform over the Microsoft Windows 
platform. In both jobs, it was my responsibility to be aware of 
Microsoft's acts and how they affected the computer industry.
    With that introduction, let me add my voice to that of the many 
people and companies who believe that the Department of Justice's 
proposed settlement is not in the public interest. The final 
judgment after a trial should punish the guilty, discourage similar 
offenses in the future, and if possible, repair the damage done. The 
proposed settlement actually causes harm, in several ways: It does 
not provide the remedy that it was meant to; it implicitly 
encourages the reoccurrence of similar wrongdoing; and it does not 
address significant larger issues that need attention.
    The final judgment for this case is important in more than just 
its immediate context; it also has important consequences in our 
increasingly digital world. Our country (and the world) has most of 
its eggs in one basket--;Microsoft's--;and this is 
dangerous. Just as any natural ecology is endangered when its 
diversity is lessened and one species dominates, so is our digital 
ecology endangered by Microsoft's overwhelming market share and its 
stifling of competition. As just one example, observe the 
devastating effects of the denial-of-service attacks against 
amazon.com and other online businesses a few years ago. They would 
not have been as effective if a significant fraction of the 
country's Internet users had not been using Microsoft's email 
programs. Also, all hacker attacks are tied to the vulnerability of 
a specific product; if there were, say, three email programs and 
three browser programs in common usage (instead of Microsoft's 
Outlook and Internet Explorer), such attacks would injure fewer 
users, spread more slowly, and consume less Internet bandwidth than 
is the case today. For the above reasons, this judgment is doubly 
important, and the currently proposed judgment is doubly dangerous. 
I believe that a good final judgment must both prevent further 
wrongdoing and counteract Microsoft's dominance in current and 
future markets. Any attempt to regulate Microsoft's conduct MUST be 
given the resources to succeed, and its workings MUST be visible to 
the public. Without these two provisions, Microsoft will evade 
lawful punishment again, just as it did in the mid-1990s.
    Finally, Microsoft should be made aware that it has no say in 
selecting or refusing its punishment. Nor should the court be 
pressured into compromise for fear that punishing Microsoft will 
damage this nation's economy. In fact, it is Microsoft's actions 
that are causing long-term damage, and any judgment that leads to 
competition, innovation, and meaningful customer choice will help 
repair that damage our economy.
    I support the efforts of the states that are pressing for a more 
comprehensive punishment for Microsoft's illegal acts. As an 
informed and active citizen, I expect nothing less.
    I submit my opinion to the Department of Justice with great 
respect, out of a deep concern for this nation's long-term 
technological and economic health.
    Gregg Williams, [email protected]



MTC-00028369

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:43pm
Subject: Microsoft
    To The Department of Justice
    I hope Judge Colleen Koller-Kotelly does not forget about all of 
us who use Microsoft products and are very satisfied with their 
performance. They produce a very good product that is easy to use. 
You get what you pay for! Unfortunately, I have a MAC Power Book and 
MSN does not have a compatible internet program. At present I have 
AOL ( overpriced) but plan to buy a new laptop that is MSN 
compatible and cancel my AOL. Has anyone ever told us how many 
cancel AOL?.....or only brag about how many sign up. Fortunately, 
the world is full of choices and I am no longer interested in 
contributing to dissenting states with my AOL monthly fee. Netscape 
did themselves in and AOL was stupid to buy them. Everyone should 
read Erick Schonfeld's January 25, 2002 ``A RIDDLE: WHY DOES 
NETSCAPE STILL EXIST?''. He tells it like it is!
    AOL stock is down 50% since I sold mine and a lawsuit against 
Microsoft is not going to bring it back up.
    I am getting fed up with my tax dollars paying for goverment 
funded lawsuits and in the States vs Microsoft it needs to be 
settled in a reasonable manner. If Microsoft had beeen contributing 
to Clinton as the illegal Asian money he probably would have told 
the DOJ to back off and let Netscape finance their own lawsuit. As 
it should have been. The nine disssenting states are beginning to 
sound revengeful and stupid.
    I guess they see success and money and their fangs go out. They 
seem to be blind to the fact that a reasonable settlement could also 
affect the business in their state in a positive manner. Microsoft 
is not asking them to divulge their secrets.
    I shall be watching the outcome and look forward to my new 
laptop and cancelling AOL.
    Karen Dahlgard Age 65



MTC-00028370

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:42pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Dear Mr Ashcroft,
    Please do not increase the microsoft penalties over what was 
agreed to.
    The settlement although severe seemed fair. Futher penalties 
would in my opinion be overkill and would result in slowing an 
already weak economy.
    Thank you for considering this important matter.



MTC-00028371

From: Samira Lama
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
5445 Elmview Drive
Bay City, MI 48706
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I want to express my support for the Microsoft settlement 
negotiated last November. I was against the lawsuit against 
Microsoft and felt a break-up of the company was totally 
unjustified; consequently, I think the compromise is a necessary 
move to allow us to move on.
    The terms accepted in the agreement are very generous to the 
competition. Computer manufacturers will have greater flexibility in 
trading Microsoft software for non-Microsoft products on the Windows 
operating system without obligation, while software developers will 
gain access to Windows internal code and even be able to license 
Microsoft intellectual property.
    The terms highlight the fairness of this proposal, which will be 
regularly monitored by an objective group of technical experts in 
order to confirm its implementation. I ask that you allow these 
measures to go through without further legal action. Thank you very 
much.
    Sincerely,
    Sam Lama



MTC-00028372

From: Mister Thorne
To: Microsoft ATR Date; 1/28/02 2:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am offering my comments on the Proposed Final Judgment (PFJ) 
that was submitted by the United States in Civil Action No. 
98-;1232. I am also sending you these comments via USPS.
    I am encouraging the Court to not accept this settlement for 
these reasons:
    1. The settlement is ineffective;
    2. The settlement does not serve the public interest;
    I encourage the Court to determine an effective remedy, one that 
(1) ends the unlawful conduct; (2) avoids a recurrence of the 
violation and others like it; and (3) undoes the anticompetitive 
consequences of that unlawful conduct.
    Effect of Proposed Remedies
    The PFJ is ineffective. It does not restore ``competitive 
conditions in the personal computer operating system market'' 
as the U.S. claims in its Competitive Impact Statement (CIS). In 
fact, the PFJ does nothing toward that end.
    As the U.S. noted in its complaint, ``PC manufacturers 
(often referred to as Original Equipment Manufacturers, or 
``OEMs'') have no commercially reasonable alternative to 
Microsoft operating systems for the PCs that they distribute.'' 
The PFJ does nothing to alter that. Instead, it offers a series of

[[Page 28262]]

restrictions and prohibitions aimed at opening the market for 
``middleware.'' It offers nothing to restore a competitive 
market for operating systems for personal computers.
    The PFJ does not ``obtain prompt, effective and certain 
relief for consumers.'' On the contrary; it's effect will be to 
leave consumers with no viable choice for personal computer 
operating systems, other than different versions of Windows, or for 
browsers, other than different versions of Internet Explorer. 
Consumers will not reap the benefits of competition among operating 
systems or browsers, as they have the benefits of competition among 
OEMs.
    In the CIS, the U.S. claims that the PFJ ensures that 
``consumers will be able to choose to use'' non-Microsoft 
products like Internet browsers. That assumes that such competing 
products will come to market, but this is unlikely given that 
Internet Explorer is given away at no cost. As Jon DeVaan, a Senior 
Vice President of Microsoft, would testify (see Microsoft's offer of 
proof in opposition to the entry of the government's proposed final 
judgment): ``No sensible company devotes large resources to 
projects from which it sees no potential return on its 
investment.'' The PFJ does nothing to open the market for 
Internet browsers or other applications, and so it does nothing to 
give consumers more choice.
    In the CIS, the U.S. says the PFJ ``forbids Microsoft from 
stopping OEMs from offering dual-boot systems.'' Yet the Court 
has determined that there exists an ``applications 
barrier'' to entry to the market for personal computer 
operating systems. The PFJ does nothing to remove that barrier.
    The District Court concluded that Microsoft violated the Sherman 
Act, and the Court of Appeals upheld the ruling, determining that 
Microsoft's ``commingling of browser and operating system code 
constitute exclusionary conduct, in violation of s 2,'' of the 
Sherman Act. Yet the PFJ does not address the issue of commingling 
and leaves Microsoft free to integrate whatever it wishes with 
Windows, to continue to use its operating system monopoly to extend 
its reach into new, emerging markets.
    The PFJ requires Microsoft to disclose to ``ISVs, IHVs, 
IAPs, ICPs, and OEMs'' the APIs used by Microsoft Middleware to 
interoperate with Windows. The provision requires the disclosure to 
occur in a ``Timely Manner.'' But ``Timely'' 
means only after Microsoft has sent any new version of Windows to at 
least 150,000 beta testers. The result is that if Microsoft 
distributes a new version of Windows to 149,999 beta testers, they 
don't need to disclose the APIs to anyone.
    The PFJ contains a provision that if Microsoft engages in 
``willful and systemic violations of the agreement,'' then 
the ``requirements and prohibitions'' in the PFJ may be 
extended for two years. What the U.S. is basically saying is this: 
``if the agreement proves ineffective, our plan is to extend 
it!''
    Finally, things have changed since the U.S. filed its complaint. 
Microsoft's dominance in the market has continued to grow. It's 
share of the market for operating systems, browsers, and common 
applications like word processors, spreadsheets, and e-mail software 
has increased. And Microsoft is moving on, leveraging its monopoly 
for operating systems to extend its control of the market with its 
.NET initiative.
    The .NET initiative is Microsoft's program to offer a new 
development platform, one that sits above the operating system. As 
Steve Ballmer, CEO of Microsoft, notes, this initiative is 
``the pillar on which we are building the next version of 
Microsoft.'' When the initiative was announced, Ballmer 
commented: ``Starting this year, everything we do will revolve 
around Microsoft .NET.'' Having conquered the market for 
personal computer operating systems, Microsoft is poised to conquer 
new, emerging markets.
    In the CIS, the U.S. says appropriate injunctive relief in an 
antitrust case should: (1) end the unlawful conduct; (2) avoid a 
recurrence of the violation and others like it; and (3) undo the 
anticompetitive consequences of the unlawful conduct. The PFJ 
achieves none of these objectives. Microsoft's unlawful conduct in 
the browser market is history, the PFJ does nothing to reopen that 
market, and it leaves Microsoft free to continue to violate the 
Sherman Act. And Microsoft's leaders have suggested that that is 
precisely what they plan to do.
    As the U.S. stated in its complaint, ``Microsoft has made 
clear that, unless restrained, it will continue to misuse its 
operating system monopoly to artificially exclude browser 
competition and deprive customers of a free choice between 
browsers,'' and ``Microsoft's conduct with respect to 
browsers is a prominent and immediate example of the pattern of 
anticompetitive practices undertaken by Microsoft with the purpose 
and effect of maintaining its PC operating system monopoly and 
extending that monopoly to other related markets.''
    Microsoft's leaders continue to give us reason for concern. At 
the start of the trial, Steve Ballmer stated in an e-mail message 
sent to Microsoft employees: ``Microsoft's business practices 
[are] entirely consistent with the way other companies throughout 
our industry compete.'' After the Court of Appeals upheld the 
District Court's finding that Microsoft violated the Sherman Act, 
Steve Ballmer made these statements:
    ``I do not think we broke the law in any way, shape, or 
form. I feel deeply that we behaved in every instance with super 
integrity.''
    ``We were born a competitor, and we'll continue to compete 
as we have in the past: vigorously and responsibly.''
    These statements from the company's CEO do not portend a change 
in the way Microsoft conducts business.
    Comments made by the leaders of Microsoft after the court 
determined it broke the law illustrate what many informed 
commentators have noted: ``Microsoft just doesn't get 
it.'' While we can expect Microsoft to follow the restrictions 
in the PFJ, we cannot expect it to live up to the spirit of it. And 
why not? Thomas Friedman, a New York Times columnist put it well in 
a column he wrote after the District Court ordered a breakup of the 
company: ``Microsoft isn't a threat because it's big. GE is 
big, Intel is big, Cisco is big. Microsoft is a threat because it is 
big and deaf to some of the bedrock values of the American 
system.''
    The PFJ is ineffective. It does not ``eliminate Microsoft's 
illegal practices, prevent recurrence of the same or similar 
practices, and restore the competitive threat that (other software) 
products posed prior to Microsoft's unlawful undertakings'' as 
the U.S. claims.
    Rather, it cements Microsoft's position as the sole supplier of 
personal computer operating systems for the Plaintiffs, It allows 
Microsoft to continue to dump products on the market in order to 
maintain market dominance. It allows Microsoft to continue to tie 
its applications to its operating systems, effectively closing the 
market to would-be competitors. And it allows Microsoft to build 
upon its monopoly position to establish market reliance on its next-
generation development platform (.NET).
    The Public Interest
    It is in the public interest for the U.S. to enforce antitrust 
law; it is not in the public interest for the Court to accept the 
PFJ. That's because the PFJ does not address the central issue in 
this matter: Microsoft's monopoly position, and its abuse thereof, 
in the market for operating systems for personal computers.
    The public has benefited from competition among PC 
manufacturers. We've benefited from lower prices, increased 
functionality, and those innovations that naturally occur when firms 
compete fairly in a dynamic and open market. If the PFJ is entered 
as is, then Microsoft is left with its monopoly. And that means no 
increased competition for operating systems despite the U.S. claim 
in the CIS that the PFJ would restore ``competitive conditions 
in the personal computer operating system market.''
    The U.S. offers no justification for its claim of increased 
competition for operating systems: none at all. While the PFJ might 
enhance competition for middleware, it leaves Microsoft in the same 
monopoly position it was in at the beginning of this action. In 
fact, since 1990, when the FTC first investigated Microsoft for 
antitrust, the company's position has only gotten stronger.
    The lack of any effective corrective action in the PFJ lets 
others know that they can get away with similar tactics, that it 
will take so long for antitrust complaints to be resolved that they 
don't even matter. The courts are seen as so slow to act 
that--;in a rapidly changing and advancing market--;they can 
be ignored, and that is definitely not in the public interest.
    The public interest would be better served by some remedy that 
ensures that Microsoft won't be back in court, yet again, for 
antitrust violations. But that is precisely what we can expect given 
that Microsoft's leaders have stated that they did nothing wrong, 
that they operated within the law and always have, that they plan on 
conducting their business as they have in the past, even after the 
Court of Appeals upheld the District Court's determination that 
Microsoft employed ``anticompetitive means to maintain a 
monopoly in the operating system market.''
    The public interest is served by ``the Government defining 
the contours of antitrust laws so that law-abiding firms will have a 
clear sense of what is permissible and

[[Page 28263]]

what is not.'' Entry of the PFJ works against that. It says, in 
effect, that if a company has the resources, then it can violate 
antitrust law.
    It can raise all sorts of ridiculous arguments to support its 
violations. It can use obfuscation to avoid answering questions. It 
can present the court with bogus exhibits that are not what they are 
claimed to be. It can protest that an antitrust action is simply a 
means for the U.S. to help the company's competitors, or that the 
U.S. doesn't know enough about computers or the computer industry to 
enforce antitrust laws there. The company can buy so much time that 
the courts and, hence, the laws become ineffective: by the time the 
courts act, the company has achieved its objectives, and after the 
courts act, the company keeps its ill-gotten gains. How is that in 
the public interest?
    An Effective Remedy
    I encourage the Court to accept nothing less than an effective 
remedy, one that serves the public interest, that restores 
competition in the market for personal computer operating systems 
and applications, and which discourages Microsoft from continuing to 
function with limited regard for antitrust law.
    But this is problematic. The new administration seems to have 
little interest in pursuing this matter, even though it is charged 
with enforcing the law and the court has determined that Microsoft 
broke the law.
    One effective way to open the market could be done by executive 
order, rather than court order. If the Plaintiffs can require that 
all their personal computers run Microsoft Windows, then they can 
just as well require that all their computers run some other 
operating system, such as UNIX. And there are good arguments in 
favor of such a change.
    Just about every personal computer on just about every desk in 
just about every government office is equipped with Microsoft Office 
and Internet Explorer. That application suite includes the most 
common applications, comprising something like 95% of the 
applications that 95% of computer users use 95% of the time. That 
same application suite is available (from Microsoft) for the 
Macintosh operating system, which is a UNIX-based operating system.
    So, if the Plaintiffs adopted a program to use UNIX instead of 
Windows with their personal computers, the ``applications 
barrier'' would be fairly low. (The ``applications 
barrier'' is a fallacy; Windows isn't more popular than 
Macintosh because there are so many more applications avaiable for 
Windows; the reason there are so many more applications for Windows 
is because Windows is more popular, the Plaintiffs and Corporate 
America long ago having decided that desktop computers must be IBM 
compatible.)
    Of course, the Plaintiffs also make use of specialized 
applications. Public agencies of all sorts use specialized 
applications to manage more and more of their operations; a wide 
variety of government workers use specialized applications on a 
regular basis. So, there is a real barrier to adopting an operating 
system other than Windows: specialized applications that were 
written for Windows need to be rewritten for UNIX. But there is also 
an opportunity to eliminate that barrier now.
    With its .NET initiative, Microsoft claims it is reinventing its 
business. Steve Ballmer claims that as .NET versions of its products 
are released, they will make non-.NET versions of products obsolete 
in four to six years. And that means that the Plaintiffs, unless 
they intend to use obsolete products in the future, have these two 
choices: either they can remain dependent on Microsoft and adopt 
.NET, or they can start to become independent now; they can switch 
from Windows to UNIX.
    While the DOJ claims (without support) that the PFJ is good for 
the economy, what would be a boost for the economy is for the 
Plaintiffs to adopt UNIX. The plaintiffs are a sizeable market for 
software developers. If the Plaintiffs adopt UNIX, ISVs will develop 
software for UNIX. And, in a marketplace not controlled by 
Microsoft, one in which market forces are allowed to operate freely, 
we'll have open competition, and the benefits of it.
    And we won't have to worry about a single firm having sole 
control of an important component of our modern economy. In two 
decades, the personal computer has gone from being as popular as ham 
radio, to being an essential tool, and fundamental to our way of 
life. We could not enjoy our modern way of life were it not for the 
development of the personal computer and the software that makes it 
so useful in so many ways.
    The public isn't served when there is only one source of oil, or 
one bank. or one TV station. And the public is not served by having 
just one supplier of the most basic software for personal computers. 
The public is served by free and open competition, and the 
Plaintiffs have a responsibility to enforce the laws that apply.
    I don't think the settlement contained in PFJ is good for the 
public or the economy. I would like to see the Court require a 
settlement that accomplishes what the U.S. claims this settlement 
accomplishes.
    Sincerely,
    Mister Thorne



MTC-00028373

From: Cynthia Roy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:45pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Your Honor:
    As you know, there was a time in America when Roosevelt had to 
launch an aggressive campaign against corruption in the corporate 
world. History has already shown us what happens when industries, 
because they are monopolies, have too much power. The question is 
not supposed to be considered on a situation basis, the antitrust 
laws were made so that, among other reasons, the general public 
would not and COULD NOT be taken advantage of. Therefore, with all 
due respect,I don't think that Microsoft should be allowed to abuse 
antitrust laws.
    Thank you sincerely for your time,
    Cynthia Roy
    e-mail: sequin101@



MTC-00028374

From: M Y
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    I wanted to let you know that I am against the Proposed Final 
Judgment. For the most part, the goals that were to be accomplished 
such ridding out MSs illegal monopoly will be overturned with this 
proposed settlement. I oppose such a deal. MS must be dealt with. I 
submit to you my objection to the Proposed Final Judgment.
    Sincerely,
    Marilyn Yu,
    310 S. Orange Ave Apt. 19
    Lodi, CA 95240



MTC-00028375

From: John Transue
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft is clearly a monopolist and stifles competition. A 
deeper punishment is vital to the industry and also to retain the 
authority of the government in anti-trust matters.
    Microsoft is predatory and parasitic. They are incredibly 
arrogant about this case. The DOJ has to demonstrate that the US is 
a country of laws not of men. They have been found to be 
monopolists. Do the right thing and punish them. Don't let their 
wealth, power, and treachery get them off the hook.
    They frequently make changes to their OS and applications for no 
reason other than to diminish competition.
    Please do the right thing and punish Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    John Transue
    Assistant Professor
    Department of Political Science
    Duke University
    [email protected]
    (919) 660-;4336



MTC-00028376

From: John R. Morris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:45pm
Subject: The Microsoft Anti-trust Case
    Dear To whom it may concern,
    I am a user of the OS/2 (operating system from IBM). I have 
found this to be a technologically superior product over any of the 
operating systems offered by Microsoft, especially their latest 
version, Windows XP. I Believe that their further bundling of an 
instant messager (The MSN Instant Messanger), the 3 year limitation 
on usage, Cd burning software and other included multimedia software 
makes it clear and obvious that Microsoft is trying to extend and/or 
maintain their monopoly. Unfortunately, OS/2 has been in decline for 
a number of years from what I believe to be unfair monopolistic 
marketing tactics of Microsoft. As a result, vendors of OS/2 related 
products have also diminished over the years. Contrary to arguments 
by Microsoft that their products encourage competition, I believe 
the opposite is true; that Microsoft's marketing practices actually 
discourages competition and stunts technological growth.
    Consequently, I do not believe that the Department of Justice's 
proposed settlement

[[Page 28264]]

with Microsoft, in its current form, is anywhere near adequate and 
that stricter measures need to be imposed on the company to prohibit 
such tactics from being used in the future.
    In addition, I am appalled that after all the effort, my tax 
dollars, and other resources that the Department of Justice has used 
and this is the best settlement that they can come up with. 
Futhermore, I am greatly troubled that the other Attorney Generals 
have fought so hard over the past years and have spent enormous 
amounts of their money, and then settle for this unrealistic 
package.
    Sincerely,
    John R. Morris
    [email protected]
    Corvallis, OR
    United States of America



MTC-00028377

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:58pm
Subject: Comment on Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    Attached (better) and below are my comments on the microsoft 
settlement.
    David McMahon
    DAVID B. McMAHON / ATTORNEY AT LAW
    1624 Kenwood Road, Charleston, West Virginia 25314
    Phone 344-;3620 / Day 415-;4288 / Fax 344-;3145
    e-mail [email protected]
    January 28, 2002
    Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    [email protected]
    Re: Microsoft Settlement.
    Dear Ms Hesse,
    I am a lawyer for low income people. I am also a ?Consumer 
Fellow? to the Business Law Section of the American Bar Association. 
I was an Official Observer on behalf of consumers on the drafting 
committee of the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform 
State Laws that revised Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code. I 
am on the Board of an organization opposing the Uniform Computer 
Information Transaction Act in the states.
    Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Microsoft 
settlement. I share generally the opinion of Hon. Darrell McGraw, 
the Attorney General of my state, the State of West Virginia.
    It is my personal position that the settlement between Microsoft 
and the U.S. Department of Justice is not in the public interest. 
The settlement does not offer remedies that sufficiently address 
Microsoft's illegal, anticompetitive behavior as a monopoly that 
puts grabbing market share above the quality of the software it 
produces. The settlement fails to include critical provisions that 
will counter Microsoft's monopolistic tactics, and does not contain 
appropriate and enforceable penalties for non-compliance. Changes to 
the settlement must be made to address these issues, in order to 
bring the benefits of competition, choice and innovation to 
consumers.
    Sincerely,
    /s/
    [Intended as a signature.]
    David B. McMahon
    DBM/dbm
    David McMahon
    E-Mail: [email protected]
    Phone/Voice Mail: 304-;415-;4288
    Fax: 810-;958-;6143
    Work Address: 922 Quarrier Street, Charleston, WV 25301
    Home Address: 1624 Kenwood Rd., Charleston, WV 25314



MTC-00028378

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20560-;0001
26 January 2002
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As a former Federal Government employee who was forced to retire 
on 2 October 1998 due to a major reduction in force (RIF) in the 
Defense Department (I was over 55 years of age and I had more than 5 
years of service), I have been following the Microsoft antitrust 
case. Personally, I feel that Microsoft should be left alone. 
Microsoft has been very good for the economy and the technological 
advancement of our country. Because of its innovative software, they 
have brought about increased computer literacy. Can any other 
software company say the same? Microsoft has also been very flexible 
in agreeing to the terms of the settlement beyond what is required 
in any antitrust case.
    Microsoft agreed to not enter into any agreements that would 
obligate a third party to distribute or promote any Windows 
technology exclusively or for a percentage of sales. I am sure 
competitors will like that. They have also agreed to allow access to 
their operating systems protocols that are used to operate within 
their server to the competition for use with their software. That 
sounds generous to me.
    Now that Microsoft has gone out of their way to cooperate, 
shouldn't we? Let us end this litigation and move on to more 
pressing issues. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Georgia Foundotos
    4 Damin Circle
    St. James, New York 11780 -1604



MTC-00028379

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not agree with the current proposed settlement as it 
stands. I have signed Dan Kegel's petition being submitted to you. 
Also, I ask you to reconsider your position and read Dan's website. 
http://www.kegel.com/remedy
    Without fixing this problem now we, as a nation, are consigning 
ourselves and future generations to facing a severe monopoly in the 
software market in America. Competition in this market in a fair and 
equitable basis lowers prices for vital research and business 
functions of public and private markets. Most significantly, from my 
point of view, research funded by the government cannot afford a 
Microsoft dominated market. Linux and open source free software is 
just now setting research programs free of huge licensing overheads. 
American business needs a cost reduction in software licensing, 
especially in desperate economic times in the IT market.
    All the horror stories of excited young companies with fresh new 
ideas and new technology being eaten and destroyed by Microsoft 
should fuel your drive to tame this monster! If Microsoft had decent 
ethics and treated people right, I wouldn't feel this way or be 
writing this letter. In fact, you would not have the case you have. 
I respect the work and time Dan Kegel has put into his review of the 
proposed settlement. Please give it your consideration. Thank you,
    Dow
    Dow Hurst
    Office: 770-;499-;3428
    Systems Support Specialist Fax: 770-;423-;6744
    1000 Chastain Rd.
    Chemistry Department SC428
    Email:[email protected]
    Kennesaw State University
    [email protected]
    Kennesaw, GA 30144



MTC-00028380

From: Edwin van Beuzekom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:51pm
Subject: 1/28/02 3 PM
1/28/02 3 PM
    Gentlemen,
    This letter is to emphasise my opinion that it would help 
busines to settle the microsoft anti trust case. Please expedite 
your decision and help business to grow again.
    Sincelery,
    Edwin van Beuzekom
    email: [email protected]



MTC-00028381

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:51pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I am extremely disappointed in the government's proposed 
settlement of the Microsoft case. The judge found that Microsoft had 
abused its monopoly power to crush the competition and rig the 
retail environment to ensure that consumers would have virtually no 
choice but Microsoft. The proposed settlement barely gives Microsoft 
a slap on the wrist and does nothing to make the market work as 
intended: in a free and fair competition.
    However, with a Republican administration in charge, I am not 
surprised that the DOJ chose to ``wimp out'' and let 
Microsoft off the hook. The Microsoft settlement, like the Enron 
debacle, demonstrates that those with big money don't have to play 
by the same rules as the rest of us. If they contribute enough to 
the right campaign coffers, and use buzzwords like ``free 
market'' and ``competition'' to cover their dirty 
deeds, they can usually get

[[Page 28265]]

government officials to either gut existing regulations and rewrite 
tax laws to their specifications, or at least look the other way 
when they break the rules. And this means that big corporations like 
Microsoft and Enron can get away with almost anything.
    I'd like to have faith in the U.S. system of justice, but I 
doubt the DOJ will redeem itself on this case. My only hope is 
Microsoft does not yet own the EC, and Europe will refuse to be 
bought out or bullied. That might at least slow down the Microsoft 
juggernaut.
    Sincerely,
    Cynthia A. McCune
    3177 Greenoak Court
    San Mateo, CA 94403



MTC-00028382

From: Chuck Broms
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I support the purposed DOJ settlement with Microsoft.
    Charles Broms



MTC-00028383

From: Douglas W. Lantz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my views surrounding the Microsoft 
settlement. I believe that the agreement is fair and reasonable, and 
would like to see the issue put behind us. Not only does the 
settlement address the concerns that brought about the case in the 
first place, but it also sets up guidelines of how to deal with 
possible future problems. Microsoft has made unprecedented 
concessions in an effort to end this debacle, and I will outline 
just a few of them for you.
    Under the settlement, Microsoft has agreed to grant computer 
makers new rights to configure Windows so as to promote non-
Microsoft software in direct competition with programs included 
within Windows. Microsoft will document and disclose for use by its 
competitors various interfaces that are internal to Windows 
operating system products. Also, Microsoft has agreed to license 
Windows to the twenty largest computer manufacturers, which make up 
a vast majority of PC sales.
    There will always be those that try to pull down whoever is on 
top, just as there will always be those that support it. I feel that 
if this case is judged by the value of its merits, rather than the 
depth of the lobbyists'' pockets, it is apparent that the 
original problems have been solved. I believe that the suit has been 
pushed by competitors rather than consumers. It has negatively 
affected our entire industry. In short, three years has been long 
enough. It is time to allow Microsoft and the IT industry as a whole 
to return their focus to innovation, rather than litigation. We must 
ensure our country's place in the world technology market, and the 
best way to do it is by moving on. I thank you for your time and 
consideration of my thoughts.
    Sincerely,
    Douglas W. Lantz, President
    Advantage Technology Group, Inc.
    [email protected]
    513.563.3560



MTC-00028384

From: E L
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    Id like to make my position known that I am against the Proposed 
Final Judgment. MS has been given all the breaks in the case. The 
Proposed Final Judgment pretty much seals the deal with Microsoft 
walking away unscathed. Justice must be served and MS should be 
dealt with accordingly. I again concur with my previous statement by 
saying I oppose this Proposed
    Final Judgment.
    Sincerely,
    Edith Landero,
    310 S. Orange Ave Apt. 19
    Lodi, CA 95240



MTC-00028386

From: Karina Montgomery
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 2:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Renata Hesse:
    As a United States citizen, I urge you to withdraw your consent 
to the revised proposed Final Judgment settlement in the United 
States v. Microsoft Corp. antitrust case. The limitations and 
punishments imposed upon Microsoft do not sufficiently restore the 
competitive conditions previailing prior to Microsoft's unlawful 
conduct.
    The Settlement only prevents Microsoft from future monopolistic 
practices; it does not punish Microsoft for previous unlawful 
behavior. The advantages of immediacy and certainty of the proposed 
Final Judgment are not sufficient cause for abandonment of pursuit 
of further litigation.
    The damage done to individuals and businesses by design of 
Microsoft and its engineers and practices requires more punitive 
measures than a slap on the wrist and a promise to never get caught 
at doing it again.
    I urge you to pursue litigation of the issue of remedy, whether 
as set forth in the Final Judgement entered by the District Court on 
June 7, 2000, or as one of the other remedy proposals described in 
the Competitive Impact Statement, section (V) Alternatives to the 
Proposed Final Judgement.
    Thank you for your time and consideration,
    Karina J. Montgomery DOB 1/13/70
    4556 Park Blvd #1
    San Diego CA 92116
    Please refer to my voter registration or passport registration 
which you as a government agency surely have access to in order to 
verify my US Citizenship.
    CC:Karina Montgomery



MTC-00028388

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attached please find a letter voicing my thoughts and questions.
Charlene Howe
(907) 333-;7207
Charlene Howe
8050 Resurrection Drive
Anchorage, AK 99504-;4731
Phone: (907) 333-;7207
E Mail: [email protected]
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I tried to fax this to you on my personal letterhead but your 
fax lines were constantly busy. There must be a lot of people like 
me wanting to express our concerns.
    As a businesswoman and a veterinarian's wife who has been 
following the Microsoft antitrust case, I believe the settlement is 
pretty fair. I have a lot of respect for Microsoft; they've 
contributed to the prosperity of the ``90's, produced well-
paying jobs, and provided great software at reasonable prices. Since 
the technology sector accounts for a third of economic growth, I am 
afraid what might happen to the industry if litigation continues.
    Microsoft has been very cooperative throughout this ordeal. Not 
only have they agreed to document and disclose various 
Windows'' internal interfaces to competitors. They also agreed 
to the establishment of technical team to monitor Microsoft's 
compliance to the settlement. What other company would risk such 
great exposure to competitors?
    Unfortunately, the technology industry faces numerous challenges 
in protecting the entrepreneurial spirit we depend on. Some special 
interests are lobbying for increased litigation, regulation, and 
legislation that could impact entire industries and threaten this 
country's economic vitality. Should we allow this to happen?
    Sincerely,
    Charlene Howe



MTC-00028389

From: Gregory Gerard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement does not redress the wrongs Microsoft 
has been found guilty of.
    Gregory Gerard
    255 Manzanita Avenue
    Palo Alto, CA 94306



MTC-00028390

From: 
[email protected]@inet
gw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 28, 2002
Hon. Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
c/o Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW

[[Page 28266]]

Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally:
    As a long time political activist I am concerned about the 
leniency regarding the proposed settlement between the Department of 
Justice and Microsoft in U.S. v. Microsoft. It is my belief that 
this will not put an end to Microsoft's monopolistic practices.
    The settlement abandons the principle that fueled consumer 
criticism and which gave rise to this antitrust case in 1998: 
Microsoft's decision to bind--;or 
``bolt''--;Internet Explorer to the Windows operating 
system in order to crush its browser competitor Netscape. This 
settlement gives Microsoft ``sole discretion'' to 
unilaterally determine that other products or services which don't 
have anything to do with operating a computer are nevertheless part 
of a ``Windows Operating System product.'' This creates a 
new exemption from parts of antitrust law for Microsoft and would 
leave Microsoft free to bolt financial services, cable television, 
or the Internet itself into Windows.
    The settlement does nothing to deal with the effects on 
consumers and businesses of technologies such as Microsoft's 
Passport. Passport has been the subject of numerous privacy and 
security complaints by national consumer organizations. However, 
corporations and governments that place a high value on system 
security will be unable to benefit from competitive security 
technologies, even if those technologies are superior to 
Microsoft's. Why? Microsoft controls their choices through its 
monopolies and dominant market share, and still is able to dictate 
what technologies it will include.
    The weak enforcement provisions in this proposed deal leave 
Microsoft free to do practically whatever it wants.
    A three-person technical committee will be appointed, which 
Microsoft appointing one member, the Department of Justice 
appointing another, and the two sides agreeing on the third. This 
means that Microsoft gets to appoint half of the members of the 
group watching over its actions.
    The committee is supposed to identify violations of the 
agreement. But even if the committee finds violations, the work of 
that committee cannot be admitted into court in any enforcement 
proceeding. This is like allowing a football referee to throw as 
many penalty flags as he likes for flagrant violations on the field, 
but prohibiting him from marching off any penalties.
    Finally, Microsoft must comply with the lenient restrictions in 
the agreement for only five years. This is not long enough for a 
company found guilty of violating antitrust law. The end result is 
that this proposed settlement allows Microsoft to preserve and 
reinforce its monopoly, while also freeing Microsoft to use 
anticompetitive tactics to spread its dominance into other markets.
    After more than 11 years of litigation and investigation against 
Microsoft, surely we can--; and we must--;do much better 
than this flawed proposed settlement between the company and the 
Department of Justice.
    Sincerely,
    Tracy Lindgren
    2825 Grand Avenue, Apt. 206
    Des Moines, IA 50312



MTC-00028391

From: Chris Metzler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enclosed please find my personal comment on the proposed 
settlement in the U.S. vs. Microsoft antitrust action. The comment 
comes in the form of four attachments.
    The first attachment is a text copy of a letter containing my 
main comment.
    The second attachment contains a text copy of an appendix to 
that letter, going through the proposed settlement in detail and 
providing a point-by-point critique.
    The third and fourth attachments contain the letter and appendix 
above again, but in .PDF format rather than text, making for more 
attractive viewing and printing.
    Thank you for the opportunity to provide a comment.
    Dr. Christopher A. Metzler
    CC: 
[email protected]@inet
gw
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
To the United States Department of Justice, and to the United States 
District Court for the District of Columbia:
    I am writing to take advantage of the public comment period 
regarding the proposed settlement in the antitrust action United 
States v. Microsoft Corporation, provided under the Tunney Act. I 
thank you for the time you will take to consider my opinions. Many 
of the letters you will receive as public comments on the settlement 
will come from computer industry professionals--;persons in the 
pay of either Microsoft or their competitors. I am neither. Nor, for 
that matter, do I have informal connections to the software 
development industry. My profession has been that of a research 
astrophysicist at prestigious research institutions. I mention this 
to indicate both that I believe I have the competence to critically 
examine the settlement and the opinions for and against, and that I 
have no direct or indirect material stake in the outcome of this 
settlement.
    Despite my independence from the computer industry, as an 
citizen and a computer user I have strong feelings about this 
settlement. I believe that this settlement is not only contrary to 
the public interest, but would damage it instead.
    As I understand, it is not illegal for Microsoft to hold an 
effective monopoly in personal computer operating system software. 
What is illegal is for Microsoft to maintain that monopoly, and 
attempt to extend their monopoly into other domains, using predatory 
or anti-competitive practices. The District Court has found that 
Microsoft has done this; the Court of Appeals has confirmed this 
judgment, and the Supreme Court has effectively confirmed it again 
by choosing not to hear a further appeal by Microsoft. Therefore,
    Microsoft has once and for all been declared guilty of such 
illegal conduct. Numerous Supreme Court decisions in anti-trust 
cases have indicated that any remedy arising out of a successful 
anti-trust action should deny the offending corporation the fruits 
of its violations. And yet, despite the fact that Microsoft was 
judged guilty by the court of damaging several companies illegally 
by its actions, there are *no* penalties aimed at making amends for 
Microsoft's past actions contained in this settlement. In fact, 
while there are numerous terms clarifying how future operations by 
Microsoft can be considered legal, there is *nothing*, anywhere in 
the settlement, that penalizes Microsoft for its past actions. In 
light of those past Supreme Court decisions, and in light of the 
flagrant nature of Microsoft's violations of the law (given that 
this is the second Federal anti-trust action against them, and their 
violation of the previous consent agreement), a settlement that 
entirely fails to penalize Microsoft for their past actions and 
denies them the fruits of their illegal conduct cannot possibly be 
considered to be ``in the public interest.''
    Instead, the focus of the agreement appears to be simply to 
prevent future anti-trust violations. This approach is tantamount to 
saying ``it's OK that you violated anti-trust law and illegally 
damaged other companies a second time, but you should stop it 
now.'' Perhaps a better way to describe it is as saying 
``Stop, or I shall say ``stop'' again!'' It 
fails to penalize Microsoft for the wrongs already done, and only 
tries to instruct Microsoft to obey a law that (being a law) they're 
supposed to obey anyway! This alone would be unacceptable; but in 
addition, the settlement as written does very little new to hinder 
Microsoft from continuing to maintain its monopoly, or extend it 
into other areas, using anti-competitive tactics. Indeed, analysts 
within the computer industry press have typically described the 
settlement as demanding almost nothing new from Microsoft. Legal 
specialists in technology antitrust issues not employed by Microsoft 
or their competitors have described the settlement as 
``business as usual for Microsoft . . .no significant change in 
the way it develops its products or sells to the marketplace.''
    It is true that the agreement outlines constraints on 
Microsoft's business practices, with the apparent intent of 
preventing Microsoft from using its influence as a monopoly holder 
either to force unfair agreements on other hardware or software 
vendors or to retaliate against them for actions involving non-
Microsoft software. However, these constraints are extremely limited 
in scope, are defined in terms of subjective descriptions which are 
not easily enforceable, and are laden with loopholes. An appendix to 
this letter covers several specific flaws in the agreement in more 
detail; meanwhile, I wish to make several general points.
    My appendix below notes how, because of subjective descriptions 
and loopholes, the agreement fails to set viable restrictions on 
Microsoft regarding the topics it actually considers. Such 
subjective descriptions and loopholes matter, because Microsoft has 
a history of using such flaws to violate agreements coming out of 
legal actions. For example, the consent decree originating from

[[Page 28267]]

the earlier anti-trust action was meant to prevent such actions as 
the bundling of Windows 98 and Internet Explorer, but this current 
anti-trust action had to be started because of subjective terms 
Microsoft successfully entered into the previous agreement that 
allowed them to ignore its constraints. In the time this action has 
taken, Microsoft's monopolies have become even more firmly 
entrenched. To the extent that the requirements of Microsoft in the 
agreement are concrete, they are comparable to what Microsoft has 
been doing up to this point. And it is patently absurd to constrain 
a company guilty of the sorts of actions demonstrated in this court 
case simply be requiring them to act ``in good faith.'' In 
other words, not only does the agreement fail to punish Microsoft 
for its past illegal actions--;actions which have damaged or 
even destroyed other companies attempting to compete--;but the 
agreement also fails in the considerably less ambitious task of 
clearly defining illegal actions or procedures that Microsoft must 
avoid.
    Finally, there are many topics not addressed by the agreement at 
all, such as Microsoft's use of proprietary standards in file 
formats, and how those standards combined with Microsoft's monopoly 
status effectively block competing products from the marketplace. 
Microsoft has an effective monopoly on certain types of productivity 
software, such as word processors and spreadsheets (Microsoft Word 
and Excel, now bundled together as part of Microsoft Office). 
Because these monopolies are so entrenched, competitors cannot 
produce competing software of these types unless their software can 
read and write Microsoft file formats. Rather than attempting to 
beat such competitors in the open market, Microsoft has repeatedly 
acted to prevent competition from taking place at all by keeping the 
internal file formats for these software packages secret, and by 
periodically changing those file formats to block potential 
competitors'' attempts at reverse-engineering them. That this 
topic is not addressed at all is yet another major failure of the 
agreement.
    What are the consequences of these failures? Dreadful, if 
Microsoft's past actions predict their future ones. There has been a 
long history of companies profoundly damaged, or even completely 
destroyed, by Microsoft's anti-competitive business practices. 
Digital Research and Stac are two examples of companies whose 
products were essentially run off the market in a flood of fraud and 
misinformation and, in the latter case, simple copying of their 
technology (for which Microsoft lost in court). This case has 
centered on the damage to Netscape, Sun and Apple by Microsoft's 
actions; there are many other such companies. we are left with a 
situation where an environment of innovation and competition is 
stymied--;stymied by fear of even bothering to enter the market, 
given the expectation that Microsoft will do anything to destroy 
your enterprise.
    In the courtroom, it has been demonstrated that Microsoft has 
falsified and even destroyed evidence. Despite these events, 
accepted as fact in a court of law, no criminal penalties have been 
forthcoming. In recent months, we have seen news stories covering 
attempts by Microsoft to manipulate public opinion in unethical 
fashion, ranging from organized efforts to get employees to stuff 
online ballot boxes/polls about Microsoft and their products, to 
writing letters to officials on Microsoft's behalf using the names 
of people who are deceased.
    Given this past history, that the Department of Justice would 
arrive at such an empty settlement with Microsoft is bizarre. After 
all, the verdict from the District Court was strongly in the Federal 
Government's favor. While the Court of Appeals subsequently rejected 
the breakup order, they clearly affirmed Microsoft's guilt. The 
position of the Federal Government was strong, and Microsoft's 
announcements of what penalties or restrictions they would not 
accept in a judgment should have carried no more weight than the 
assertions of a convicted felon that he ``would not 
accept'' jail time. It has been noted by Rep. John Conyers Jr., 
the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, that this 
settlement in fact is less onerous for Microsoft than the terms that 
Microsoft was willing to concede in settlement talks *before* it 
lost the case in the Court of Appeals.
    Conyers went on to describe the settlement as ``like losing 
a game by forfeit when your team was ahead with the bases loaded and 
your best batter on deck.'' (Washington Post, 2 November 2001) 
Or, as an acquaintance wrote, ``Can someone explain to me how 
you can win the trial, win the appeal, have the Supremes deny cert 
to the defendant, and then let the perps walk?''
    So why ``forfeit''? Why this settlement? The most 
commonly-encountered explanation is that the settlement springs 
purely from politics: the executives of Microsoft were major 
campaign contributors to the current administration. For example, 
Robert Lande, a professor of antitrust law who has followed the case 
closely, has commented that ``Microsoft broke open the 
champagne when Bush was elected.'' This may or may not be an 
accurate assessment of the source of this agreement; but it is a 
difficult suspicion to dismiss; and if this suspicion is true, the 
claim that the agreement is in the public interest seems even more 
preposterous. Another explanation offered for this settlement has 
come from Microsoft and its employees, who have argued that the 
settlement is indeed in the public interest simply because it halts 
the continuing hindrance of the operations of the leading computer 
software company, and therefore is good for the high-tech industry 
and the economy. These statements are the modern-day equivalent of 
``what's good for General Motors is good for America,'' 
and they are false. It is true that our modern economic engine 
depends strongly upon the continuing innovation of the computer 
industry. However, that innovation depends in turn upon the ability 
of many different sources to imagine and create new software, and 
for those creations to be able to compete for public attention. It 
is indeed a bad thing to stifle the ability of the nation's largest 
software company to produce new products; but it is not an 
acceptable alternative to stifle the ability of everyone *but* that 
company to innovate instead.
    In short, this settlement is a disaster for the citizens of the 
United States. It is the polar opposite of an action in the public 
interest.
    It neither penalizes Microsoft for its past illegal, destructive 
acts, nor does it force the kind of change in Microsoft's current 
business practices necessary to prevent further predatory, anti-
competitive behavior. This despite a contempt for the public and the 
law displayed in Microsoft's behavior in the courtroom and up to 
this very moment. If this settlement is upheld, I can guarantee that 
over its five year course, the problem with Microsoft will only 
worsen. This may result in yet another court challenge against 
Microsoft; but we have seen in this case alone how Microsoft 
attempts to slow the pace of court action as long as possible, the 
better to create a ``fait accompli'', as they successfully 
have here. If history, and this and the previous agreements in 
particular, are any guide, Microsoft will yet again be able to hang 
on to their ill-gotten gains, and be faced with a set of 
``restrictions'' that effect no change and allow them to 
continue to reinforce their monopolies. The resulting damage to the 
prospects for innovation and competition in the high-tech sphere 
will be incalculable, and to the public interest even more so. If 
Microsoft's hegemony in the computer industry is allowed to solidify 
further, as this agreement would guarantee, then we will bequeath to 
our children the kind of future that the early anti-trust actions 
against Standard Oil or Jay Gould were intended to prevent: where 
one entity controls the dominant new industry in our economy. We can 
be better ancestors than that. I therefore urge you, as strongly as 
I can, not to accept this settlement.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Dr. Christopher A. Metzler
    2702 Hemlock Avenue
    Alexandria, VA 22305
    APPENDIX: SOME DETAILED COMMENTS ON THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT
    The most significant complaint about this agreement is a general 
one. Microsoft has been found to be a monopoly by a court of law; 
that verdict has been affirmed by the Court of Appeals, and the 
Supreme Court has chosen not to review that affirmation. Therefore, 
under existing antitrust laws, Microsoft is required to conduct its 
business practices in a non-predatory/non-anti-competitive fashion. 
This is a standing requirement of law upon Microsoft. As noted in my 
letter, the agreement as written holds no penalties for past action, 
only ``restrictions'' upon future behavior. In my letter, 
I noted how these ``restrictions'' are ineffective; below, 
I go into more detail on some of these. But most important of all is 
the fact that such restrictions should be unnecessary; they attempt 
to restrict Microsoft from doing things that are illegal in the 
first place, since as a monopoly Microsoft is bound not to conduct 
its business in a predatory fashion. For example, requiring 
Microsoft in the agreement not to retaliate against companies that 
sell competing products with their computers is no great 
accomplishment; that was already illegal! In fact, enumerating such 
restrictions, and then

[[Page 28268]]

providing exceptions shortly afterward, gives the impression that 
there are certain terms under which Microsoft is actually *allowed* 
to violate the law. This cannot be considered acceptable.
    Below are specific comments on parts of the agreement.
    --;Section III, Part A--;
    Section III, Part A. has several problems. First, it only 
restricts what Microsoft can do against OEMs, which means makers of 
``Personal Computers'' according to the definition given 
later in the settlement.
    The definition of ``Personal Computers'' used in the 
agreement excludes a wide class of technologies which should not be. 
For example, a maker of machines which are intended to be used as 
servers does not fall under this definition--;odd given that the 
distinction between machines intended as desktop PCs and machines 
intended as servers is often blurry. The phrasing in this Part 
indicates that Microsoft is perfectly free to retaliate however they 
choose for whatever they choose against manufacturers/vendors of 
server hardware.
    Second, it says that Microsoft cannot retaliate by altering 
commercial relations with OEMs. But they can certainly retaliate by 
doing nice things for everyone *but* the target OEM. That might seem 
to be forbidden from the next clause in that sentence (including the 
parenthetical remark), but it isn't; that only forbids withholding 
*non-monetary* Consideration that others get. They can withhold new 
*monetary* Consideration that others get without running afoul of 
the agreement.
    Furthermore, this Part restricts retaliation, but it doesn't 
restrict Microsoft from entering into really predatory licenses with 
companies with whom they hadn't previously been doing business. In 
other words, Microsoft could act so that if you were not previously 
licensing Windows, and wanted to be, you'd better not do anything 
that upsets them (such as described in Subparts 1, 2 and 3 of this 
Part, III A.) or you'll only get a bad license from them. You might 
think this is prevented by Part B immediately following; but that 
only applies to ``Covered OEMs'', not new ones.
    Next, Section III, Part A restricts Microsoft from retaliating 
against OEMs that ship Personal Computers that include Windows and 
another OS or will boot more than one OS; but it doesn't restrict 
them from retaliating against companies that ship or are 
contemplating shipping machines which do not include a Windows OS at 
all. Against OEMs that ship some of their Personal Computers with 
only a competing operating system installed, or with no operating 
system installed, Microsoft is perfectly free to retaliate however 
they like.
    Next, OEMs which are not Covered OEMs can have their Windows 
licenses terminated without the notice and opportunity to cure 
described here as to be provided to Covered OEMs. What is the 
purpose of this distinction? Why do only the bigger OEMs get this 
protection? The obvious reason is ``to lock them into selling 
Windows.'' In other words, a clause assisting Microsoft in 
further solidifying its monopoly is contained within the agreement 
itself!
    Finally, the last paragraph says that Microsoft is not 
prohibited from providing Consideration if it's commensurate with 
the OEM's effort/expenses related to Microsoft products. But since 
Microsoft is not required to provide this Consideration, this means 
that they can use this provision of Consideration as a carrot for 
the kind of behavior they want OEMs to follow. The first part of 
this restriction might seem to forbid that, since it talks about 
withholding Compensation--;but that's non-monetary compensation 
only. They could certainly give monetary compensation (i.e. 
kickbacks) under this ``restriction.'' One might think 
this is prevented by the restrictions in Part B immediately 
below--;but again, that only applies to Covered OEMs, not new 
ones.
    --;Section III, Part B--;
    Similar to the guarantees of license termination warnings/ 
opportunities to cure described in the previous Part, the presence 
of such volume discounts, and different volume discount schedules 
for 1-;10 vs. 11-;20 Covered OEMs, strongly discourages 
those OEMs from selling any other OS. This is another clause which 
*helps* Microsoft maintain its monopoly.
    --;Section III, Part C--;
    Since the constraints of this part only apply to Microsoft's 
interactions with OEMs--;makers of ``Personal 
Computers''--;other hardware manufacturers, such as people 
making machines which are intended to be used as servers, *can* be 
restricted by Microsoft from exercising the options listed here.
    --;Section III, Part D--;
    Under these terms, in order to obtain information about the 
Windows APIs etc., one has to join MSDN or ``similar 
mechanisms.'' What are the terms of so joining? Presently, MSDN 
subscriptions cost a lot of money. This constraint seems to be 
saying that to get Microsoft to play fair, everyone has to pay them! 
Furthermore, what's to prevent Microsoft from making joining this 
mechanism difficult for entities they wish to punish or abuse?
    Also, this section requires Microsoft to begin providing access 
to APIs in a ``Timely Manner,'' which is defined as 
``the time Microsoft first releases a beta test version of a 
Windows Operating System Product that is distributed to 150,000 or 
more beta testers.'' So if they only release it to 149,999 beta 
testers, this time never arrives (and so the restrictions which are 
to occur at that point don't)?
    Clearly, this ``Timely Manner'' demand is easily 
circumvented. And, for the purposes of this agreement and 
definition, what's a beta tester?
    If the software is sent to a company, such as a member of MSDN, 
to be tested, does that company count as one beta tester? Or are 
there as many as the company has employees that *ever* sit down in 
front of a machine. This is not clear, and is full of possibilities 
for exploitation.
    --;Section III, Part F--;
    This section hinges on the ban against 
``retaliating''; it is not clearly defined what would 
constitute ``retaliation.''
    Furthermore, the entities used in this Part are defined in terms 
of the term ``Personal Computer,'' which again is defined 
in a very restrictive fashion. Again, Microsoft is allowed under 
this Part to retaliate against manufacturers of machines which are 
intended to be used as servers, for example.
    --;Section III, Part G--;
    Once again, Microsoft is permitted under this Part to retaliate 
against a wide class of hardware manufacturers and vendors because 
of the bizarre definition of ``Personal Computer'' used in 
this agreement.
    Furthermore, an exception is provided where Microsoft 
``obtains a representation that it is commercially 
practicable'' for the other party to do equal or bigger 
business with competing software. Nowhere does the agreement 
indicate from where such a representation of feasibility must 
come--;it could come from inside Microsoft itself!
    The agreement does say that the representation should be 
obtained ``in good faith''; but that's subjective, and 
absurdly generous to a company that has been found guilty of 
repeated abusing past agreements.
    --;Section III, Part H--;
    In Subpart 1, allowing MS to present the options for MS or non-
MS software to people as ``one group'' or ``the other 
group'' virtually guarantees no one will use the non-MS stuff.
    Regarding the exceptions 1. and 2. to the rest of Part H, both 
listed near the end of the part, 2. is an enormous loophole! It 
allows Microsoft, and their Windows OS, to shun some non-Microsoft 
software simply because Microsoft or some capability of Windows 
itself claims that software is not up to snuff. It could be a 
ridiculous claim; but in the time it takes to sort it out, the 
practical damage to the company providing that software is done, and 
Microsoft's monopoly position is that much stronger. And, of course, 
``reasonably prompt'' is a subjective term, and based on 
their past behavior, Microsoft can be counted upon to interpret it 
to their advantage.
    --;Section III, Part I--;
    Again, this section is hobbled both by the use of subjective 
terms (``reasonable'') and the bizarre definition of 
``Personal Computer'' used throughout this agreement.
    Subpart 5 seems to be saying that in any agreement Microsoft 
signs to give people APIs or documentation or similar information, 
like they're supposed to provide under the agreement, Microsoft can 
in turn require the software makers to license to Microsoft any 
intellectual property rights they might have associated with 
anything the software companies might do that's described in this 
Judgment, even if those properties are unrelated to the project for 
which the APIs/etc. are used. This effectively authorizes one of 
Microsoft's more strongly anti-competitive tactics!
    --;Section III, Part J--;
    This is perhaps the most flawed Part of the entire agreement. 
Regarding Subpart 1 . .who decides whether disclosure of a 
particular piece of information compromises the security of anti-
piracy etc. systems? Microsoft? They can just say that it does, 
without substantiation, and thus avoid terms of this agreement. Any 
disagreement with Microsoft's claim, and they just drag it out 
forever in court while the other company dies. This sequence of 
events could not be more predictable. It will happen. Count on it.

[[Page 28269]]

    Furthermore, it is important to note that effectively all 
communications protocols of interest include some sort of 
authentication process, that Microsoft's future plans involve 
license subscription with online verification, etc. The claim can be 
made that none of their APIs, relevant documentation, or 
Communications Protocols are completely empty of information on 
security protocols, software licensing, encryption, authentication, 
digital rights management, etc. This clause basically means that 
Microsoft can withhold pretty much everything. It is a loophole 
through which a supertanker could be sailed.
    Regarding Subpart 2, how is it determined whether a licensee has 
a history of willful violation of intellectual property rights? Is 
it from past legal convictions, or findings against them in civil 
courts?
    Or is it just that Microsoft says so? And who decides whether he 
licensee has ``a reasonable business need for the API, 
Documentation, or Communications Protocol''? Microsoft? And who 
gets to decide whether the standards Microsoft gets to establish for 
certifying the authenticity and viability of the business are in 
fact ``reasonable'' or ``objective''? Microsoft 
has stated that they do not consider Open Source to be a viable 
model; does this mean that no one writing Open Source software would 
be allowed to look at the APIs or Communications Protocols? 
Apparently, according to the terms in this agreement.
    In particular, this is an effective lock-out for designers 
wishing to create free software relating to anything which contains 
``security''-type subsystems (of the types listed in the 
Subpart). And regarding 2d), since the third party, that gets to 
test/ensure verification and compliance with Microsoft 
specifications, has to be approved by Microsoft, what's to stop 
Microsoft from using this third party evaluation as a barrier to 
other companies'' bringing their products to market? Nothing in 
this judgment.
    This Part is a disaster.
    --;Section IV, Part A--;
    The presence of subjective terms such as ``reasonable 
opportunity'' seems like a recipe for further delays while 
court actions proceed.
    --;Section IV, Part B
    Three people is not a sufficiently large group to vigorously 
pursue everything the Technical Committee is tasked to oversee. 
Furthermore, the small size of the committee makes it strongly 
susceptible to politics: a pro-Microsoft administration means two 
pro-Microsoft members on the Committee voting in the third member. 
To a great many people, this committee appears to be an empty 
gesture.
    And the constraint on public comments by the TC has enormous 
ramifications. It prevents whistle-blowing, for example. If the 
system breaks, and two members of the Committee are protecting 
Microsoft, the third can't say anything about it.
    --;Section IV, Part D
    Subpart 4c) indicates that ``If the TC concludes that a 
complaint is meritorious, it shall advise Microsoft and the United 
States of its conclusion and its proposal for cure.'' No 
provision is made for what happens next. What if Microsoft disagrees 
with the Committee? What mechanism exists to decide what the 
appropriate response to the complaint will be? How long can 
Microsoft drag out the proceedings?
    Subpart 4d) is, to be blunt, appalling. Under this agreement, if 
the TC finds that Microsoft has been brazenly violating this 
agreement, that fact can't be used in any court proceeding? And the 
Committee members can't talk about it in any legal proceeding? This 
is simply absurd; it seems intended to make sure that the Committee 
cannot actually accomplish anything.
    --;Section V, Part A--;
    This Part defines the length of the agreement as five years. 
This is too short for any penalty agreement, of course; anyone 
following this case knows that Microsoft can drag out a court action 
for three years at a minimum.
    --;Section VI--;
    ``Consideration'' is poorly-defined. It is not 
sufficiently general; there are many other forms of compensation 
than are listed here. Under the definition of ``Microsoft 
Middleware Product,'' existing technologies which are not 
listed there--;such as IIS, SQL software, etc.--;are not 
Microsoft Middleware Products, and so Microsoft can go ahead and 
continue to exploit secret capabilities of the kernel/APIs in their 
design, and thus maintain an unfair advantage over competing 
software.
    As noted above several times, the definition of ``Personal 
Computer'' is far too narrow. In particular, there is often no 
practical distinction between desktop, ``intended-for-single-
user'' machines, and machines intended to be used as servers. 
Excluding servers from the definition (and thus from the constraints 
of any agreement) makes no practical sense.
    Also as noted above, ``Timely Manner'' is defined in 
an easily-circumvented fashion.
    The definition of ``Windows Operating System Product'' 
notes that Microsoft alone gets to decide what is part of the 
Windows OS and what is not. If this restriction had been in place in 
the past, many of the claims Microsoft made in this case, later 
disproven, would simply have been accepted as fact. This is a bad 
definition.



MTC-00028392

From: Wayne Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The currently proposed settlement with Microsoft seems bad in 
that it does not appear to penalize or restrain Microsoft enough.
    Wayne L Smith
    669 Los Ninos Way
    Los Altos CA 94022
    [email protected]



MTC-00028393

From: A L
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge,
    I want to let you know that I am against the Proposed Final 
Judgment. Microsoft should not go unpunished for leveraging their 
illegal monopoly and utilizing anti-competitive behavior. MSs fruits 
of their illegalities must be dealt with in a proper manner. The PFJ 
does non-of this. Thus I submit my stance opposing the Proposed 
Final Judgment. Thank you for your time in the matter.
    Respectfully,
    Aubrey Landero
    310 S. Orange Ave. Apt. 19
    Lodi, CA 95240



MTC-00028394

From: joeikel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:57pm
Subject: Pubic Comment
    I desired to get a signed copy of my comments to you concerning 
the Microsoft case and requested Mail-Etc to send a FAX to you but 
they have reported difficulties in establishing a connection.
    To assure that my comments will arrive in a timely manner I am 
sending them as an attachment to this e-mail. Mail-Etc will continue 
to send a FAX and if they succeed there will be a duplication of 
documents in your files.
    Thank you!
    Joe G. Ike



MTC-00028394--;0001

    3410 76th Avenue, SE
    Mercer Island, WA 98040-;3439
    January 25,2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to you today to encourage you to bring the 
litigation against Microsoft to an immediate and decisive closure. I 
must state that I have been unequivocally and strongly against this 
case from its very inception. It appears evident to me that it is 
very unfair to punish a company for excelling in their industry. I 
am a volunteer instructor with a non-profit organization teaching 
senior citizens how to enrich their lives by becoming computer 
literate. This is no easy task but at the close of every session I 
thank God that Microsoft has been so innovative and far sighted as 
to integrate their basic Operating System with applications to 
provide the User with a basis of commonality that makes the learning 
process infinitely easier. This applies not only to senior citizens 
but also to those individuals learning the use of new software to 
increase their knowledge and consequently leading to industrial 
efficiency. Prior to my retirement I vividly remember the days when 
it was a nightmare when attempting to home-brew our own integrated 
system. I have experienced the fact that Microsoft has expended 
every effort to provide us with the features that we sorely needed.
    As I dwell upon the past three years I conclude that it must 
have been very taxing on the IT industry, the economy, Microsoft and 
its employees. I understand that Microsoft has spent millions of 
dollars in their defense--;money that could have been put into 
the development of new products

[[Page 28270]]

resulting in further advancement of technology and industrial 
efficiency. The employees of Microsoft have had to endure an air of 
uncertainty during this entire situation. As a citizen I am 
extremely concerned with the possible flight of talent that is the 
backbone of Microsoft's awesome capability.
    It is difficult for me to understand the problems related to the 
proposed, but rejected, settlement. Judging from what the media has 
reported, Microsoft has agreed to the terms included in the 
settlement as well as to the terms brought forth on issues that were 
not considered to be unlawful. To name two concessions, Microsoft 
has agreed to avoid agreements that would obligate any third party 
to exclusively distribute Windows technology. Additionally, 
Microsoft will not obligate software developers to refrain from 
developing competing software. Frankly, I personally cannot 
understand why Microsoft should have to divulge the code that makes 
up their Operating System. I would certainly include that in the 
realm of being proprietary and intellectual property. To put it more 
strongly, to me it smacks of being a case of sour grapes by certain 
other organizations that have not been as successful.



MTC-00028394 0002

    Chairman Greenspan commented, with words to the effect, that the 
Guide-On that is going to lead the economy of our nation out of the 
doldrums is technology. It is our future. There is absolutely no 
doubt in my mind that Microsoft has been a major contributor to 
technology. As a result, and to reiterate, I personally would like 
to see this matter closed as soon as possible and I am sure that I 
am among many who share this same point of view. Thank you for your 
time and giving me this opportunity to voice my opinion.
    Sincerely,
    Joe G. Ike
    Engineer( retired )
    e-mail [email protected]
    tel: (206) 232-;5643



MTC-00028395

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sir:
    The Intellectual Property Group strongly urges the government to 
conclude that the proposed settlement with Microsoft is wholly 
inadequate to encourage Microsoft to comply with applicable legal 
and ethical practices.
    Microsoft has often played the game that simply because an 
action is not specifically illegal, then it is acceptable to take 
the action, even if such action is contradictory to common business 
ethics. In many cases, Microsoft has taken this concept a step 
further and unilaterally decided that certain laws are extremely 
limited, as in the case of failing to identify communications with 
Congressional representatives because, as Microsoft alleges, they 
are not part of the government (referring specifically to 
Microsoft's interpretation of the Tunney Act). In fact, Senator 
Tunney recently declared, with respect to Microsoft's interpretation 
of the law, ?I do have some pride in my legislative record and my 
history of service in the Senate, and I 
don-bs't like to have my words and my 
intention being misinterpreted,? reported at http://
www.siliconvalley.com/docs/news/depth/tunney012602.htm. ?The 
disclosure provisions were designed to help ensure that no defendant 
can ever achieve ! through political activities what it cannot 
obtain through the legal process.? Id. ?Failure to comply with these 
provisions raises an inference or, at a minimum, an appearance of 
impropriety.? Id. Microsoft has a long record of disregarding the 
law and intellectual property rights of others in favor of its 
determination to sustain its monopoly. Microsoft executives have 
often criticized competition without factual basis, and have 
launched smear campaigns against people who take positions contrary 
to their immediate business interests. Moreover, Microsoft has a 
long record of campaigning against fair competition by other 
technologies, including open source technologies. Microsoft has 
attempted numerous times to quash and tarnish the goals of the open 
source movement. Such tactics are not only fundamentally unfair and 
unethical, but also against the interest of consumers, especially in 
view of Microsoft's dismal software security record.
    The Intellectual Property Group urges the government to insist 
on a settlement or verdict that serves to benefit consumers. Such a 
settlement would not only require Microsoft to timely share relevant 
portions of its software code with the business community, but would 
also require that it agree to offer reasonable royalties to 
intellectual properties in which it holds a controlling interest. 
Without this second aspect to the settlement, smaller companies 
could be subject to intimidation and lawsuits by Microsoft. Such 
actions would stifle competition and result in fewer choices for 
consumers.
    Sincerely,
    Dave Ashby
    The Intellectual Property Group
    http://www.ipgroup.org



MTC-00028396

From: Todd Symionow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement that the DOJ and Microsoft came up with is 
ineffectual and is bad for the people of the United States. After 
reading the agreement, it appears to me that Microsoft dictated the 
document to the DOJ, who typed it up for them. Microsoft has 
received a judgement of being a Monopoly by the courts.
    Microsoft should have received a fine of several billion 
dollars, plus stiff oversight into its practices (like IBM had to go 
through). The settlement does not punish Microsoft for its illegal 
and monopolistic activities and doesn't prevent it from continuing 
to operate in illegal and monopolistic ways. The most important part 
of the case was ignored by the DOJ--;Microsoft's tying of 
software to its operating system. The largest harm that Microsoft 
has done to the citizens of the United States is the integration of 
more and more software into its operating system (Microsoft calls it 
middleware). Every time Microsoft integrates another program into 
the operating system, it harms the marketplace by killing 
competition, forcing us to use Microsoft's proprietary technology 
(such as activeX, rather than Java), and preventing us from 
uninstalling unwanted features/software. Microsoft keeps talking 
about innovating. When it talks about innovation it's really talking 
about monopolization.
    The agreement talks about removing shortcuts and icons. The real 
answer is for the web browser (and other middleware) to be separate 
from the operating system so that the consumer can choose which 
browser (middleware) to use. This wasn't in Microsoft's monopolistic 
interest, because having the browser (middleware) separate from the 
operating system prevented Microsoft from locking consumers into 
using Microsoft's proprietary technologies. I am extremely concerned 
about Microsoft's .net technology. Not only is Microsoft tying all 
of their products into .net, but they are beginning to require 
consumers to use it. An example includes the messaging and 
multimedia features built into Windows XP. To take advantage of 
these features, you have to sign up for a Passport (.net) account. 
This is another form of Microsoft's illegal and monopolistic 
behavior.
    Microsoft has continuously broken previous consent decrees. I 
have no confidence that Microsoft will abide by this decree either. 
Besides, this decree is just a slap on the wrist. The world's 
largest monopoly in history must be fenced-in and controlled so that 
it doesn't continue to harm consumers. I truly feel that the current 
DOJ, under the current Pro-business Bush administration is doing a 
disservice to the American people by not dealing with Microsoft more 
harshly. This is a turning point. Our government has the opportunity 
to change Microsoft's behavior now and to restore competition in the 
computer software marketplace. The Microsoft settlement will not 
restore competition and it does not punish Microsoft for its 
illegal, monopolistic actions.
    I do not support the current Microsoft Settlement. The opinions 
expressed in this email are my own.
    Todd Symionow
    CC:Todd Symionow



MTC-00028397

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern
    I don't feel that the current Settlement will curtail or 
discourage Microsoft from continuing the same illegal practices. 
Something has to be done to truly level the playing field. There are 
many talented and creative people who do not further our current 
technology because they know that Microsoft would use their money to 
crush it no mater how good it is. Almost all of my co-workers feel 
the same way. And many of them feel that Microsoft has the DOJ in 
it's

[[Page 28271]]

pocket and will be able to get away with what ever it wants to. If 
people could commit a crime that would make them $50,000,000,000 and 
all they had to do was give back $1,000,000,000 most people would do 
it as many time as they were allowed. And with the current 
settlement, Microsoft WOULD NOT be giving up a billion dollars and 
WOULD be furthering their Monopoly! I read an editorial in Barrons, 
December 10th, metro section in which a Dr. Jeffrey Smith gave a 
very good analysis and solution to the problem. I would highly 
recommend a read of the article and especially his solution.
    Thank You,
    David Anderson
    This is my opinion and I am not speaking for JPL or NASA.



MTC-00028398

From: WILLIAM ROSSI
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement 
20 Bea Avenue East Northport, NY 11731
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft: I am supportive of the Department of 
Justice's efforts to settle the antitrust case against Microsoft. I 
prefer the remedies provided by the settlement agreement, as opposed 
to breaking up Microsoft. Anticompetitive business practices will be 
curtailed by Microsoft's agreement; for example, it will become 
easier for consumers to remove features of Windows from their 
computers and replace them with other software programs. 
Additionally, Microsoft has agreed not to retaliate against software 
developers who promote software that competes with Windows. The 
settlement agreement provides the appropriate remedies to the 
complaints made by the plaintiffs. No further action should be taken 
against Microsoft at the federal level.
    Sincerely,
    William Rossi r



MTC-00028399

From: Richard Murchy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-trust case.
Attorney General John Ashcoft
U S Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave.NW
Washington D C 20530
    Dear Mr Ashcroft,
    This letter is to show my support for the pending settlement of 
the Microsoft Amti-trust case. The compromise represents a fair 
resolution to this legal dispute.It has gone on long enough.
    Microsoft has made the Computer easy to use and the breakup of 
this great company is a poor decision to make. The proposed 
settlement provides flexibility for computer makers with uniform 
licensing, rights to re-configure Windows with other programs, 
abilities to license Microsoft technologies and to have access to 
the Windows internal code. With these conditions in place Microsofts 
rivals will have ample opportunity to carry on their own operations 
and will allow Microsoft to operate without further disruption, 
which of course, will be an asset to the computer consumer and the 
current struggling economy.Don`t breakup this fine company 
that has put the world at our fingertips.
    Sincerely,
    Richard S. Murchy
    W.188 Lake Forest Lane W.
    Shelton, WA 98584
    CC:[email protected]@
inetgw



MTC-00028400

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:01pm
Subject: Fwd: Attorney General John Ashcroft Letter
    THEY MADE SOME BRUTAL BUSINESS DECISION, BUT TO BREAKUP A 
TECHNOLOGY COMPANY WHO STARTED FROM SCRATCH IS DISASTEROUS AGAINST 
ALL BUSINESS GROWTH PRINCIPLE. hOWEVER i BELIEVE THE SHOULD PAY A 
CONSIDERABLE FINE WHICH SHOULD BE to PROVIDE INTERNET SERVICE TO 
SMALL COMMUNITY FARMS REALLY UNDERPRIVELEGED AND THEY SHOULD BE ABLE 
TO CHOOSE THWE INTERNETSERVICE FOR THEIR OWN CHOICE AND msft SHOULD 
PAY FOR 3 YEARS.
    I AM A VERU SMALL FRY INTERESTED IN BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY. P L 
E A S E get ENRON and these crooks Thanks I hope yopu give my 
thought some time.
    Respectfully
    Josef Brunner



MTC-00028401

From: mofish
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Thank you for finally ending the antitrust 
lawsuit against Microsoft with a settlement that is more than fair. 
I personally feel that enough is enough. We have expended millions 
of dollars on this suit already, and I believe our tax dollars could 
be more prudently allocated.This is a strong agreement. It grants 
computer manufacturers new rights to configure systems with access 
to various Windows features. In addition, it creates a governmental 
technical oversight committee to review Microsoft software codes and 
books, and to test Microsoft compliance to ensure that Microsoft 
abides by the agreement. The only term of the settlement I believe 
is inappropriate is the internal interface disclosure. I do not 
believe that Microsoft should have to divulge any information to its 
competitors relating to how it designs or secures its product. This 
particular term defies the very foundation upon which this nation 
was built: free enterprise. Your decision demonstrates insightful 
leadership on your part. I am glad that our Attorney General is a 
friend of American business. In my opinion, no more action should be 
taken at the federal level in this case.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Chris Johnson
    20821 Hillcrest Pl. Edmonds, WA 98026



MTC-00028402

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the settlement by the mediator was fair and beneficial 
to consumers and the United States economy. It is time to move 
beyond this litigation.
    Joyce & John Hammill



MTC-00028403

From: Mark G. Munsell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement



MTC-00028404

From: t t
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    Your honor I submit my objection to the Proposed Final Judgment. 
Apparently, there are several loopholes encompassed in the framework 
of the final proposal, which favors Microsoft. The proposed final 
settlement does not dish out any due justice or punishment on the 
side of Microsoft. At the same time no devices are in place to 
ensure MS compliance to the stated rules enclosed in the 
settlement.Although being closely monitored, Microsoft will not have 
any direct supervision to reassure the company complies with the 
stated agreement. A three-man compliance team overseeing Microsoft 
remain in alignment to the stated rules and regulations. This three-
man oversight team will be composed of the following: one appointee 
from the Justice Department, one appointee from Microsoft, and 
another appointee chosen by the two existing members. In turn, 
Microsoft will control half of the oversight team. All findings by 
this committee will not be allowed into court. The sole purpose for 
such a committee is to inform the Justice Department of all 
infractions committed by Microsoft. Subsequently the Justice Depart 
will launch its own investigation into the matter and commence 
litigation to halt all infractions. When all is said and done, the 
oversight committee is just window dressing. In turn, who will not 
strictly oversee Microsofts business moves? In my opinion, the 
Proposed Final Judgment does not provide sufficient and appropriate 
restrictions or penalties against Microsoft. What reassurance do we 
have against Microsofts illegal and illicit activities? I can assure 
you that the Proposed Final Judgment does not effectively address 
the question. I am against the Proposed Final Judgment. It in fact 
pardons MS of all wrongdoing.
    Respectfully,
    Travis Thurman
    311 Estes Ct.
    Travis Airforce Base 94535



MTC-00028405

From: Hugh Queen
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 28272]]

Date: 1/28/02 3:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
301 Bobby Jones Road
Sarasota, FL 34232
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I hope that this settlement will mean the end of any further 
action at the federal level and put an end to any more attacks on 
Microsoft. Microsoft has never been a monopoly and the government 
certainly has no place telling people how to run their businesses.
    Microsoft is willing to put this behind them; they are 
sacrificing potentially millions of dollars in profits in order to 
get a settlement agreed upon. They are giving up access to their 
source code without retaliating when it is used to compete with 
Microsoft products. This alone will cover any complaints against 
Microsoft by allowing a greater number of products to be used in 
what were predominantly Microsoft areas.
    I hope that his will satisfy everyone, as it well should. 
Microsoft is going above and beyond what was expected of them and it 
should be appreciated.
    Sincerely,
    Hugh Queen
    CC:[email protected]@
inetgw



MTC-00028406

From: Betty Brennan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle the Microsoft case with the current findings. We 
feel the prosecution of Microsoft has been and is detrimental to the 
entire economy. The public has been penalized by actions of the 
federal government in this unreasonable prosecution by the 
government, Microsoft competitors, various states where the 
competitors reside and a prejudiced judge. We feel Microsoft has a 
better product and should not be prosecuted for making the best 
successful economy in history and its prosecution led to the 
recession. It appears the other giants, i.e. Exxon and Mobil, 
merging banks, merging lumber companies, etc. manage to merge and be 
monopolistic to the detriment of the regular citizen causing 
increased prices and the federal government does not interfere. 
While Microsoft gets punished for going it alone (without political 
aid) and the other giants lobby Congress, we (everyday citizens) 
have to pay the higher prices.
    Please settle this matter with the current decisions and do not 
carry it out any longer. Forcing Microsoft to help their competitors 
is unAmerican.
    Joe and Betty Brennan
    FAX206-;878-;1681



MTC-00028407

From: Edward Votypka
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement See attached, please.



MTC-00028407--;0001

@??d;7??---;--;R*EDWARD A. VOTYPKA
16611 Mohican Trail
Chagrin Falls, OH 44023
January 25, 2002
Attorney General Mr. John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    This is to voice my support for the settlement recently reached 
between the Department of Justice and Microsoft. In my opinion, this 
lawsuit should never have happened. The basis of antitrust laws is 
damage to the consumer and monopolization of the market. There was 
no damage to the consumer. Bill Gates, through Microsoft, has helped 
consumers enormously. He standardized computer software. You do not 
need five different programs to do something. Nor is the price 
exorbitant; in fact, prices for software have gone down. Microsoft 
put out a better product at a better price. His competitors had 
every chance, and still do, to put out a better product and they 
have not. Instead, they have gone crying to the federal government 
citing lack of competition. While it is true that Microsoft plays to 
win, so does every other firm in the IT business ?? indeed, in any 
business. Microsoft has tried to be fair in meeting the Department 
of Justice demands. Microsoft has agreed to open the company up to 
more competition, agreeing to allow other developers more of its 
copyrighted code to aid in the development of third party programs; 
Microsoft has agreed to a uniform price list; Microsoft has agreed 
to disclose interfaces that are internal to Windows'' operating 
system. This is more than most companies would do.
    I urge you to support this agreement and allow us to put this 
matter to rest.
    IF MERGEFIELD PARA4 1/2 PARA4+<> ......
    Sincerely,
    Edward Votypka



MTC-00028408

From:
    [email protected]@in
etgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Good Day:
    Short and simple, I am a consumer. A consumer who has been 
harmed by Microsoft's monopoly in the form of inflated prices, 
lack of software choice and shoddy software produced by Microsoft. I 
join with the top Consumer ogranizations in America (Ralph Nader's 
Consumer Project on Technology, The Consumer Federation of America 
and Consumer's Union) in asking you to reject the proposed 
settlement as it does little to preserve real competition going 
forward and does nothing to punish Microsoft for their illegal past 
behaviors. Thank you for your consideration.
    Respectfully,
    Michael A. Crist
    5416 Palos Verdes Blvd.
    Torrance, CA 90505
    [email protected]



MTC-00028409

From: Lauren Kosty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:06pm
Subject: Microsoftsettlement
    To Whom it May Concern,
    I think that Microsoft should not be allowed to abuse the 
antitrust laws or force consumers to use their own internet browser 
because there must be competition in the market, otherwise Micosoft 
will not be motivated to produce a product that is of good quality. 
It is unfair to take away the consumers right to choose the product 
they prefer and it is not beneficial to our countries economy to 
lose its competative edge by permitting monopolistic companies to 
exist.
    sincerely,
    Lauren Kosty
    [email protected]



MTC-00028410

From: Paul Svitenko
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    From time to time, I hate Microsoft and its product.
    At all times I hate this antitrust effort. It is unnecessary. 
Costly. Hypocritical. History is replete with antitrust prosecutions 
that have wreaked nothing but havok. Doing something to end a 
government-granted monopoly is one thing. Attacking the most 
successful company of our day is another. They got to the top by 
offering what the public wanted. We paid them all the way.
    Let those who have the skills and honest desire punish Mr. Gates 
and company in the market place. There are many out there. If 
Microsoft lets down even for a minute, they will suffer ? 
alternatives abound, as the Apple, Linux, and AOL-Netscape-Lindows 
possibilities show.
    In the end, it is not Microsoft that beat AOL, Sun, Apple and 
the rest of them ? it was I and other consumers who chose a cheap, 
relatively reliable, available standard in computing. The rest 
remind me of Carl Marx ? riding on the coattails of their betters 
and trying to bite the hand that has enabled them to feed 
themselves. It's disgusting, and you should find something more 
constructive to do with my tax dollars.
    Best regards,
    Paul L. Svitenko, Esq.



MTC-00028411

From: Don Carlson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please get this settled and move on with life. Don't cave in to 
the demands of inferior companies and their whining senators etc. 
Show me a better product at a better price and I will buy it. Until 
then, leave Microsoft alone and let's get on with serious business. 
Thank you for your consideration.
    Sincerely, Don Carlson
    PO Box 867
    Winthrop, WA 98862
    509-;996-;3631



MTC-00028412

From: K T
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:09pm

[[Page 28273]]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    I am in opposition to the Proposed Final Judgment in the 
Microsoft case. Undoubtedly, MS continues to violate business 
practices. The Proposed Final Judgment does not punish Microsoft for 
its past violations to the anti-trust laws. Microsoft is guilty of 
breaking several anti-trust laws. Under the final settlement, 
Microsoft is permitted to retain most if not all profits gained 
through their illicit activities. Subsequently, the PFJ will not 
compensate parties injured or harmed through Microsofts egregious 
misdeeds.
    In addition, the PFJ will not take into account all Microsoft 
gains made through its illegal maneuverings. With all due respect, 
the final settlement is basically acknowledging the acceptance of 
Microsofts anti-competitive behavior. What kind of message does this 
send out to the public? I can assure you that the message is clear 
and simple.
    The PFJ encourages big corporations to engage in monopolistic 
and predatory conduct, which in turn is detrimental to the 
technology industry at large. With all due respect your honor, I am 
outraged at such a preposterous proposal that only helps Microsoft 
to remain intact and continue with its unethical practices. In 
conclusion I submit to you my objection to this Proposed Final 
Judgment.
    Respectfully,
    Karen Thurman
    311 Estes Ct.
    Travis Airforce Base 94535



MTC-00028413

From: Mark Sutherland
To: Microsoft 
ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/28/02 3:10pm
Subject: Microsoft anti-trust
    Please don't let Microsoft get away with it. Microsoft would 
have been just fine if not for their cut throat business practices. 
Releasing a OS that compeats fairly on the market would mean that 
microsft would have about 50-;60% market share. But when a 
hardware manufacturer has to sign an agreement to only sell 
computers with only the one type of operating system it hurts all of 
us. Competition is what makes our capitalist economy go round and 
when the OS manufacturer stops that from happening we become little 
more than a communist commune. Their control of the market has been 
unmeasurable and this control has damaged the way we live, the way 
we learn, and the way we work. Microsofts Monopoly has cost 
businesses in the US alone Billions in dollars that could have been 
paid back to stock holders or be used to pay off loans and help the 
economy instead of hurting it. Don't let Microsoft screw us all 
again make them work with binders on for awhile and see if they can 
deal with some of their own medicine.
    Mark Sutherland
    548-;59-;5236



MTC-00028414

From: Jeryl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Don't let Microsoft get away with their tactics any longer! I do 
not want to see a world dominated by a company that seeks to control 
all flows of information, whether in the office, school, home or on 
the net.
    A concerned citizen
    J Barnett
    Norfolk VA



MTC-00028415

From: Tom Stevenson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement



MTC-00028416

From: Gordon Ruby
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I don?t believe that the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
anti trust case is fair in any way. I am a computer technician that 
has been working with Microsoft software for more that 12 years. I 
have repeatedly seen Microsoft use its monopolistic advantage to 
destroy the competition. The proposed settlement only helps 
Microsoft conquer one of the last areas that it doesn?t have a 
monopoly: the education system. I find this to be absurd. Also there 
are so many loop holes in the proposed settlement that the 
punishment will be less than a slap on the wrist.
    Gordon Ruby
    River City Technical Services
    10534 NE Beech St.
    Portland, or 97220
    503-;262-;1930



MTC-00028417

From: Rob Ellis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
A. Robert Ellis
88 College Road W
Princeton, NJ 08544
    To the Court:
    As a citizen, a student, a programmer, and a consumer, I would 
like to comment on the anti-trust case against Microsoft, as allowed 
by the Tunney Act.
    I feel that the proposed settlement with Microsoft does not do 
enough to punish the company for past anti-competitive actions, nor 
is it specific enough to ensure that future incidents will not 
occur. For details, please see the statement made by Dan Kegel and 
others, which has been, or will be submitted. I agree entirely with 
their comments.
    I hope that a stronger, more detailed agreement can be reached 
that will resolve current complaints, and protect businesses, 
programmers, and consumers in the future. Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Arthur Robert Ellis



MTC-00028418

From: McDaniel-Neff, Clifton
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 3:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am thoroughly opposed to the settlement that has been reached 
between the Justice Department and Microsoft in the Antitrust case. 
Microsoft is, without a doubt, a monopoly that has abused its power 
and will continue to do so unless it is reigned in by the 
government. Microsoft corp. does not compete on the merit or value 
of its software, but by using unfair tactics to get where it wants.
    Any settlement, etc. in this case should set very clear rules 
that Microsoft must adhere to. It should also set forth punishments 
for past and/or future abusive action. Please do not allow this 
settlement.
    Clifton McDaniel-Neff
    Visual Information Specialist
    For Your Information, Inc.
    Phone: (202) 267-;2818
    Email: [email protected]



MTC-00028419

From: E T
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally-
    Please consider my disapproval at the Proposed Final Judgment. 
Consider the true facts in the matter and judge accordingly.
    From my understanding a Final Settlement has been reached 
between the two parties. However the Proposed Final Judgment will 
overturn the evidence found by the U.S. Court of Appeals indicting 
Microsoft in violation of antitrust laws.
    The proposed settlement has the Justice Department withdrawing 
their charges against MS. In fact, based on the assessments made on 
the proposal, Microsoft will be cleared of all wrongdoing in the 
matter. How can this be?
    There are several glaring flaws in the PFJ. However, non-so more 
apparent than allowing an absentee landlord to govern Microsoft. 
With all due respect, the final settlement provides no security to 
restrict MS from breaking any laws in the future. In my humble yet 
accurate opinion, the future governing body, implementing certain 
rules or regulations and forcing MS to adhere by them, will not be 
stringent nor forceful enough to make any dramatic changes. 
Similarly, I am not convinced that these stiff penalties applied to 
MS will ensure the security and future growth of other companies,
    A whole new framework of laws must be established to justly 
punish MS. The Proposed Final Judgment abstains from such 
justification and order. Again I submit my objection to the stated 
Proposed Final Judgment.
    Sincerely,
    Eduardo Tualla
    Sacramento, CA



MTC-00028420

From: Marty Irwin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:14pm

[[Page 28274]]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please accept my attached letter of response regarding the 
Microsoft Settlement with the Department of Justice. Thank You ! 
Marty Irwin Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://
mobile.msn.com
1116 NW 52nd Street
Vancouver, WA 98663
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing today regarding the settlement that was reached 
between the Department of Justice and the Microsoft Corporation in 
their three year long antitrust battle. I believe that this case has 
been propagated for far too long and the money and resources 
expended on both sides of this dispute could have been put to better 
use elsewhere.
    The terms of this settlement are fair. Microsoft has agreed to 
design all future versions of its Windows operating system to work 
in conjunction with the products of its competitors. The company 
will also cease any action that may be considered retaliatory. 
Adherence to this settlement will also be ensured by a government 
appointed oversight committee which will monitor Microsoft. It is 
clear to me that this settlement addresses the issues that were 
brought in this suit and then some. The reluctance of some people to 
accept these terms is proof that they are more concerned with 
perpetuating their own political agendas than they are with finding 
a suitable solution to this problem.
    Thank you for supporting this settlement and for allowing me to 
voice my opinion on this issue.
    Sincerely,
    Marty Irwin



MTC-00028421

From: Matthew Stoecker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:15pm
Subject: I urge acceptance of the proposed settlement (EOM)



MTC-00028422

From: carmar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:15pm
Subject: Support settlement of Microsoft case
    Dear Atty. General Ashcroft:
    I am writing to request your support of the settlement Microsoft 
has offered and the Department of Justice has agreed to. There will 
always be rivals and special interests who object. It is time to put 
closure and I trust you will support the settlement of this case.
    Sincerely,
    Carolyn Palmquist
    Havana, Florida



MTC-00028424

From: Dave
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing in the hope that my thoughts and concerns may be 
heard by the court of Judge Colleen Kotar-Kelley. I'll be brief. The 
settlement, as proposed by the DOJ, the accepting states and 
Microsoft is fair to all concerned and the general in public. This 
case has only minimally been about consumer protection from a 
monopoly and has largely been about protecting the interests of a 
very few, large corporate and government interests to make sure that 
their brand of technology isn't usurped by vendors like Microsoft 
who work to find unique technologies and incorporate them into a 
coherent, useable form for large numbers of people to benefit from 
the technologies use. In regard to this competition, the proposed 
settlement is very fair, for two of it's primary stipulations, in my 
mind. The first is that OEM's are assured that Microsoft can not 
take retribution on the OEM's if the OEM's decide they find one 
technology more compelling than a Microsoft technology. It also 
provides the means for Microsoft's competitors to find out about 
underlying interfaces into it's applications and operating systems, 
by allowing the sharing of specific technology information,
    but which does so, in a controlled atmosphere that protects 
Microsoft's rights to it's intellectual property.
    This is the most important reason to accept this proposal. It 
DOES protect the intellectual capital of this company without the 
wholesale rape and plunder of it's most important technological 
secrets. In a communist/socialist system, one would expect that the 
details of how a successful business is operated would be viewed in 
extreme detail without any regard for the rights of those 
individuals who have worked so hard to make that company a success. 
But this is America. Organizations and individuals in our society 
have the right to protect and keep private the fruits of their hard 
work and share those fruits with others in a way that rewards those 
who worked to create those fruits. Microsoft's competitors, 
including the states who are objecting to this settlement (these 
states also have compelling interests on the behalf of Microsoft's 
competitors in my humble opinion) care not about competition, but 
how to get as much intellectual property as possible and eliminate 
Microsoft as a threat to their very profitable franchises which are 
far from affordable for the average consumer (which is what they 
keep telling us this is all about, that this is for Jane and Joe 
consumer).
    Finally, I am not surprised, even in the light of all the stuff 
that has gone on at ENRON, that the loss of billions of dollars from 
investor funds (holding Microsoft stock) is not a big deal to our 
government leaders because of all the money that state and federal 
representatives hope to acquire from a major shake up of Microsoft, 
and because their corporate benefactors (IBM, SUN, AOL/TimeWarner, 
et. al) will benefit from a coup in obtaining Microsoft's 
intellectual property. ENRON is a big deal, because so many 
government leaders had there hands involved in that organization in 
so many ways. Microsoft is, on the other hand, not a big deal to the 
government and needs to be done away with, because rather than spend 
a lot of time throwing money at congressional leaders and lobbying 
congress, Microsoft went about it's business. Microsoft did do and 
still does an excellent job of finding the best and the brightest 
talent to become one of the best marketing and technology companies 
in the world. If you really want to find out about competition, then 
why don't you go out and compare a Microsoft solution, to that of 
one of it's competitors (IBM, SUN, AOL/TimeWarner, Linux or other 
OS/Application variants) and evaluate on all facets (up front costs, 
consulting needs, ongoing support, etc), and you will see that if 
more draconian remedies are pushed upon Microsoft that the high 
prices already charged by these Microsoft competitors will do 
everything except become more competitive.
    Thank you for your time and consideration!
    David J. Renner



MTC-00028425

From: W. Curtiss Priest
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:17pm
Subject: Proposed Microsoft settlement: woefully insufficient
    Dear Justice Department,
    As a software innovator and holder of several software patents, 
I have first hand knowledge of how extremely brutal, unfair and 
bullying Microsoft is to others in the industry. I was involved for 
five years in negotiation, arbitration and potential legal action 
against Microsoft which only caused Microsoft to spend incredible 
resources to deny me and Humanic Systems any just and due 
compensation for our innovative work.
    In my opinion, as President of Humanic Systems, a company that 
was (above) abused by Microsoft regarding our intellectual property 
for significant components of Microsoft Outlook, the proposed remedy 
is extremely inadequate:
    1. It does not provide substantial redress for the prior losses 
caused by MS on others
    2. Secrecy provisions undermind the ability to obtain API 
information and will systematically be used by MS, in my opinion, to 
continue its monopoly stranglehold
    3. There are no structural remedies, and, without those, the 
``fascist'' mindset of Ballmer and Gates will continue to 
dominate the thinking of each and every employee
    4. Microsoft's stated opinions about various forms of open 
software, being a ``cancer'' undermines the ability for 
consumers to get the maximum benefit for the least cost This 
position, alone, demonstrates that they want ``all the 
marbles'' and it is a ``winner take all'' game 
Consider, for example, a PBS documentary about extreme competition 
as taught within the Gates family as Mr. Gates grew up This person 
does not know the word cooperation, and, without extremely directive 
measures, will never show cooperation to the rest of the software 
industry that is slowly dying under his ruthless hand.
    Very truly yours,
    Dr. W. Curtiss Priest
    President, Humanic Systems
    Director, Center for Information, Technology & Society
    Member, American Economics Association
    Prior, Principal Research Associate, MIT
    Author, --;Technological Innovation for a Dynamic 
Economy--;, 1980 (Pergamon Press)
    --;Risks, Concerns and Social Legislation--;, 1988 
(Westview Press)

[[Page 28275]]

    --;W. Curtiss Priest, Director, CITS
    Center for Information, Technology & Society
    466 Pleasant St., Melrose, MA 02176
    Voice: 781-;662-;4044 
[email protected]
    Fax: 781-;662-;6882 WWW: http://Cybertrails.org



MTC-00028426

From: Rick Balian
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:18pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I hope Microsoft does not get off with a warning or a fine. 
Warnings have been disregarded in the past. And a fine will only be 
earned back by higher prices on its products. I think for Microsoft 
to curtail its illegal domination there have to be specific, strict 
instructions as to what it may and may not do. Windows XP is even 
more bundled with Microsoft products than previous versions. How did 
that happen; why was that product allowed to be shipped? Microsoft 
does not play well with others and must be severely restricted in 
its drive to curtail and bully competition, ignore industry 
standards and push through its own proprietary standards and hamper 
innovation.
    Sincerely,
    Rick Balian --;



MTC-00028427

From: Evelyn Kessler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In my opinion, Microsoft's proposed settlement to the law suit 
is a fair solution to ending this long, ongoing fight by competitors 
to try to bring Microsoft its knees. The willingness of nine states 
to accept the settlement clearly demonstrates that it is fair and 
reasonable. But nothing will ever be enough ``punishment'' 
for those states who want to damage Microsoft.
    I urge the DOJ to recommend acceptance of the settlement 
proposal. Allow Microsoft, along with its new awareness of business 
practices, to continue building great software and services for 
users around the world.
    Evelyn Kessler



MTC-00028428

From: Leon A Wilson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:18pm
Subject: DOJ: AOL vs. MSFT



MTC-00028429

From: Anatoly Hiller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The PFJ should terminate Microsoft's illegal monopoly. The PFJ 
should deny to Microsoft the profits of its past behavior and 
penalize them.
    The PFJ should prevent any future anticompetitive activity. 
Anatoly Hiller (650) 473-;3617



MTC-00028430

From: Adams, Michele
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 3:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Attached please find letter in support of the Microsoft 
settlement.
    Michele M. Adams
    GTECH Corporation
    55 Technology Way
    West Greenwich, RI 02817
    email: [email protected]
    Ph: 401-;392-;5556
    Fx: 401-;392-;4808



MTC-00028430--;0001

20 Pepin Street, Unit 4
West Warwick, RI 02893
January 28, 2002
VIA FACSIMILE (202-;307-;1454) & E-MAIL 
([email protected])
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
RE: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I am sending this public comment via email to record my support 
for settlement of the court case against Microsoft Corporation. I 
seek your continuing support in the effort to persuade the judge 
that the settlement will be in the better public interest of the 
United States than the alternative of costly and unfocused, 
continued litigation.
    The settlement, whatever its effects on Microsoft Corporation, 
will be quite beneficial to the community that uses personal 
computers, PC makers will be able to re-configure the desktop 
package of programs that come with Microsoft?? Windows, or even to 
combine making PCs with operating systems from Microsoft and other 
software makers, with the ending of exclusive distribution and 
promotion terms in contracts, These and other changes will bring 
greater flexibility and opportunity for experimentation to the PC 
world, If Microsoft wants to continue to lead the industry it will 
have to come up with new and better innovations faster than it has 
in the past.
    Please continue to support the settlement. Thank you.
    Respectfully yours,
    Michele Adams Pizzitola



MTC-00028431

From: Rose, David
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 3:22pm
Subject: personal opinion of MS settlement
    To whom it may concern.
    I am very concerned regarding a quick and non-remedying 
settlement against Microsoft. I feel as thought I am a pet of this 
particular corporation ... I am only allowed to have what they will 
allow me to have. Not only are my software choices very limited, but 
even some of those competing choices are taken away from me because 
of the reasons which found Microsoft guilty of being an illegal 
monopoly.
    One thing I do not understand is why Microsoft has not been sued 
by corporations using their software. There are many software 
``bugs'' in their past software--;Office 95, 97 2000, 
etc. Windows 95, 98, 98 second edition, millennium, etc. If I am 
buying a license to use software, and not the software itself, it 
stands to reason that I would expect the licensor to keep fixing the 
``bugs'' in software for a specified amount of time; and 
that new releases are just software with new features.
    However, there are many unresolved software ``bugs'' 
which are never fixed. With no competing software, my only recourse 
is to buy a new license for a different version of software. This 
may be an expensive remedy which I should not have to afford.
    Also, I have heard that major resellers MUST sell Microsoft 
software on their computers. From Dell, Gateway, etc I can not get a 
computer only. I must purchase an operating system. But, on a 
previous computer that will no longer be used, I already paid for an 
operating system. If that computer is no longer to be used, or to be 
used with Linux, Unix, FreeBSD, Be, or some other ``ground 
roots'' operating system, why must I pay again for a software 
license when one is already freely available for use?
    I believe I have been wronged. I have been duped out of my hard-
earned money. I insist that this will not happen again! I want the 
party found guilty by a jury to be considered guilty by the judicial 
system!
    S. David Rose
    Stamford, CT, US
    mailto:[email protected]
    This e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally 
privileged. If you received this message in error or are not the 
intended recipient, you should destroy the e-mail message and any 
attachments or copies, and you are prohibited from retaining, 
distributing, disclosing or using any information contained herein. 
Please inform us of the erroneous delivery by return e-mail.
    Thank you for your cooperation.



MTC-00028432

From: Linda Charlie Puls
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:21pm
Subject: Microsof Settlement
    PO Box 639
    Shoreham, NY 11786
    January 26, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I support the settlement between your office and Microsoft in 
the ongoing antitrust trial. I believe that Microsoft has the right 
to free enterprise, and the terms it will comply with to end the 
case are fair to its competitors. Microsoft's concessions in the 
settlement will ensure that their rivals have more opportunities to 
gain market share. Making new program removal features available in 
Windows XP and giving computer makers new freedoms to integrate non-
Microsoft programs into Windows will ensure that other companies who 
make good products will have a greater chance of distributing them 
to the public.
    Please settle the Microsoft case, and be mindful of their right 
to innovate and reach as many people as possible with their 
products.
    Sincerely,
    Linda J. O'Neill -Puls
    Linda Puls

[[Page 28276]]



MTC-00028433

From: Gary Robson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the findings in the Microsoft antitrust case were 
accurate and reasonably stated, but that the remedies do not go far 
enough to prevent recurrence or to compensate consumers and 
competitors for the damage done by Microsoft.
    When I first began using computers with Microsoft operating 
systems, the OS represented around 1% of the total cost of the 
computer (an IBM PC with MS-DOS). Now, I can buy a computer for 
under $1,000 and a copy of MS Windows will cost over $100. They've 
gone from 1% to 10%. The vast amounts of profit Microsoft is raking 
in from their operating systems monopoly is funding advertising, 
price cutting, and other methods of invading other profit centers, 
including not only middleware, but video games, the ISP/ASP market 
(through MSN), and many less visible incursions through acquisitions 
and partnerships.
    Breaking up Microsoft is the only realistic solution. 
    Gary D. Robson
    1284 Highway 72 North
    P.O. Box 9
    Belfry, MT 59008-;0009
    406/664-;3067 (home)
    406/446-;2742 (work)
    [email protected] http://www.robson.org/gary/



MTC-00028434

From: David Martin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: [email protected]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. In my opinion, the Proposed Final Judgement 
(PFJ) does not protect the interests of the American public, and 
does not address the anti-competitive practices Microsoft was found 
guilty of. In particlular, I would like to make the following 
points:
    The PFJ doesn't take into account Windows-compatible competing 
operating systems The PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly Narrow 
Definitions and Provisions The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive 
License Terms currently used by Microsoft The PFJ Fails to Prohibit 
Intentional Incompatibilities Historically Used by Microsoft The PFJ 
Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive Practices Towards OEMs The PFJ as 
currently written appears to lack an effective enforcement mechanism 
As a professional working in the Computer Software industry, I have 
personally observed the effect Microsofts monopoly power has had. It 
has stifled innovation, blocked investment in promising competitive 
technologies, and severely distorted the efficiency of the software 
marketplace. Today, no one knows what the economic value of a PC 
operating system is, or a web browser, or an email client. 
Microsofts monopoly has blocked the free flow of information and 
capital that is essential to a healthy market. The decision by the 
Justice Department to capitulate to Microsoft is a gross injustice 
to the average consumer of computer software.
    In summary, the Proposed Final Judgment, as written, allows and 
encourages significant anticompetitive practices to continue, would 
delay the emergence of competing Windows-compatible operating 
systems, and is therefore not in the public interest. It should not 
be adopted without substantial revision to address these problems.
    Sincerely,
    David M. Martin
    74 Shelters Rd.
    Groton, Massachusetts
    [email protected]



MTC-00028435

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:22pm
Subject: Mircosoft settlement



MTC-00028436

From: Tom Hayes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My Opinion/Vote: Settlement needs to be completed and minimal 
penalties, if any, need to assessed and allow Microsoft freedom to 
be innovative, creative and competitive and survive in the world 
competitive economy and free market. At the rate the legal 
proceeding are going, throwing this case is completely an option.
    I am pro-settlement with Microsoft, DoJ and the nine states. The 
issues, who and why's are not reflective of the general populating 
and I am convinced this is being driven by Sun, IBM and AOL/Netscape 
and several other competitors who lack product creativity and 
success. After all the legal battles and information about harming 
consumers, at the end, you ask the general population and consumers 
thru the Tunney Act. If this was really truly driven by the 
consumers, I am pretty sure we would be hearing from them more then 
Sun, IBM, and AOL/Netscape funded legal battles.
    Settlement: Microsoft, economy, consumers and innovative 
productivity has suffered enough. There should minimal penalties 
against Microsoft and many of the practices in question are no 
longer in place or even applicable. Companies need to be innovative, 
creative and competitive to survive in the world economy and free 
market.
    Issues:
    *These legal fees are costing the US and Microsoft many dollars. 
I see where Microsoft took a finical cost, $660 Million dollars 
battling these legal issues, but where/what are the funds fueling 
the DoJ and nine states and the other previous other nine states? My 
income, state and local tax dollars and maybe some selective 
corporate sponsorship? I would challenge opposing corporate 
sponsorship in the court of law on a case slated on behalf of the 
people.
    *Other legal issues related to suing Microsoft i.e. the Class-
Action Suit http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/Press/2002/Jan02/
01-;11ClassActionDe cisionPR.asp and the resent AOL/Netscape 
suit http://www.microsoft.com/freedomtoinnovate/info/
news--;01--;22--;02.asp *Where has the end consumer been 
harmed by Microsoft IE browser, in the scope of this case? For that 
matter Microsoft's technology harming consumers? And one should look 
back in history and see where technology has come from and improved 
consumers, productivity and world wide economy.
    Other 100 Class-Act Suite, and suggested settlement:
    ``Under the proposed settlement, Microsoft had agreed to 
provide more than $1 billion in cash, training, support and software 
to help make computer technology more accessible to public schools 
serving nearly 7 million of America's most economically 
disadvantaged children.'' Would have helped those schools and 
prepared those students for the current real world computing skills. 
But no, Apple/Mac's has the loin-share of that market and go figure 
they are training students on non-Microsoft technology in 
preparation their profitable careers.
    AOL/Netscape Suit:
    Who killed Netscape? Well, AOL purchased Netscape for $10 
billion dollars in the midst of the DoJ trial, even after hearing 
concrete evidence that IE's success in the market was based on 
merit, not market share. And in the middle of a so called browser 
war, sound like a poor business decision gone bad and now want the 
sue.
    Regards,
    Tom Hayes
    425-;442-;8322



MTC-00028437

From: Tim Pawlenty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:25pm
Subject: RE: Microsoft lawsuit settlement
    January 28, 2002
    Ms. Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW
    Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I applaud the leadership displayed by the Department of Justice 
and the nine Attorneys General for developing the proposed Microsoft 
settlement agreement that balances the protection of consumer 
interests and the competitive process. I believe that this 
settlement will preserve Microsoft's ability to innovate and engage 
in normal procompetitive activities, critical during our nation's 
current economic recession. At the same time, the settlement is a 
win for consumers, with its broad scope of prohibitions and 
obligations imposed on Microsoft. It will certainly require 
substantial changes in the way that Microsoft does business. It 
imposes significant costs on the company and entails an 
unprecedented degree of oversight. Furthermore, the agreement 
strikes an appropriate balance within the technology industry, 
providing opportunities and protections for firms

[[Page 28277]]

seeking to compete while allowing Microsoft to continue to innovate 
and bring new technologies to market.
    This reasonable settlement will help consumers, the industry, 
and the economy to move forward.
    Very truly yours,
    Tim Pawlenty
    Majority Leader
    Minnesota House of Representatives



MTC-00028438

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:21pm
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. T
    his 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,
    Annette Hall
    5409 Highview Lane
    Citrus Heights, CA 95610-;7405



MTC-00028439

From: Miles C
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:26pm
Subject: opposed to settlement
    From what I have read in the majority of trade publications is 
that the consensus is that this is not a settlement that will 
significantly benefit anyone other than Microsoft.
    I hope that 9 states pursuing a separate path is enough to at 
least give whomever might be in charge of this case that it this 
case is strongly questionable. I would put forth the suggestion that 
attorney generals in 9 states are also experts in the matters of 
law, so even though 9 states have gone along with it the matter has 
some serious issues. As near as I can tell, Microsoft is and will 
remain a monopoly. They make the rules for their OS. They will also 
use unfairly their considerable resources to enter in and dominate 
any aspect of the software industry because there does not exist 
another corporation who can print money like they can. The idea of 
leveraging a monopoly is something that I don't think was adequately 
explored.
    I think that they have adopted the old Royal philosophy of don't 
explain and don't apologize as much as possible. It works, most 
people will go away if you deny anything long enough. They have 
added to it with significant amounts of money in contributions 
making the party line that much more difficult to dispute.
    At this juncture, they seem to be trying to make new inroads 
into people's lives such that they will control large portions of 
commerce with the Internet by holding much of the information used 
for marketing and purchasing. If the Department of Justice can have 
its case split so cleanly at this juncture how much less of a chance 
will there be an answer in the future when no doubt the political 
pressure will likely be even greater because of greater profit?
    I truly doubt that they are significantly changed from their 
earlier tactics simply because those tactics worked and now no 
longer are necessary rather than they are facing any punitive 
measures. There will remain the fact that no one can develop for 
their platform as easily as they can. They have the source code and 
expertise in developing it that automatically gives them an 
advantage in experience.
    I honestly feel as though I was sold out as a consumer. I don't 
doubt that any company that is developing in a field that MS looks 
at as potentially profitable feels even worse knowing that they will 
be acquired or destroyed as a force in that market through no 
special ability of MS other than not having that market niche fund 
its development. Office will help pay for Money, which will help pay 
for Age of Empires, for instance. Please reconsider this settlement. 
I truly believe that a diversified software industry will be much 
better for us than a gigantic corporation kept healthy through 
government intervention on its behalf.
    Sincerely,
    Miles Cannon



MTC-00028440

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wish to comment on the proposed Microsoft settlement. I agree 
with the problems outlined in Dan Kegel's analysis posted on the web 
at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html It is my opinion that 
the current proposed settlement will NOT do enough to prevent 
further anti-competitive practices by Microsoft, and to restore 
consumer choice to the software market.
    Robert A. Glenn
    360 W 22nd St #11K
    New York, NY 10011



MTC-00028442

From: Bill Keough
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The recent history of antitrust has been a jihad by the 
Department of Justice against a pantheon of American industry. 
Antitrust cases against IBM, Intel and Microsoft seemed to have been 
designed to wreck the high tech industry. Al-Qaida could not have 
designed a more devious program to destroy the U.S. economy. 
Hyperbole? The current recession was started or at least given a 
boost by the tepped up legal action against Microsoft and the 
consequent fall of it's stock. Hundreds of billions of dollars have 
been lost.
    This suit has unleashed a mob of whining moochers angling for a 
chunk of cash or control of Microsoft. If this lawsuit is upheld it 
will result in the virtual destruction of the company, maybe not at 
once, but surely in a drawn out death by fragmentation and 
bankruptcy. No more operating systems, no more Web browsers, no more 
games, no more office software, no more jobs, no more nothing. 
Contrast the way Microsoft does business with the way the Post 
Office, a real monopoly, does business. Can Microsoft prevent the 
entry of competitors into its realm of business? No it can't, but 
the Post Office routinely does this the only way possible: by the 
use of force or the threat of force. There is no other way to bar 
competition than to resort to force. Entry in a field of business 
however does not ensure success. Your competitors do not have to 
make allowances for your weaknesses by tailoring their business 
practices so you can survive. Everything is permitted except force 
or fraud. As Bill Gates has said many times, no one has been forced 
to do business with them. If their partners do not like the terms 
Microsoft sets they are always free to leave. Microsoft should not 
be compelled to open up its products to competitors. Windows and 
Internet Explorer are their property to dispose of as they see fit.
    This is the essence of the case, or lack of a case, against 
Microsoft. Envious competitors complain about Microsoft's business 
practices, which they themselves routinely use. On a personal level, 
I started with the Prodigy browser and then switched to AOL. Finally 
when I bought a new computer I ended up with Internet Explorer. I 
never had any trouble switching browsers and from a business point 
of view it would not make sense to impede the installation of new 
software. After all what would be the point of an operating system 
that sabotaged certain programs? That Microsoft includes an internet 
browser with windows does not mean you have to use it. Competing 
browsers on CDs are so numerous they are regarded as junk mail. The 
Department of Justice case against Microsoft is not just senseless 
but in a recession and a time of war it is doubly destructive. 
Reason and justice dictate that this case should be dismissed.
    William B. Keough
    Seattle, Washington



MTC-00028443

From: Bill Young
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    Many others have eloquently voiced their opposition to the 
proposed settlement. I cannot hope to express the same concerns as 
well in a brief email.
    I am against the proposed settlement because I do not feel it 
goes far enough in restricting the anti-competitive practices that 
currently allow Microsoft to maintain a monopoly position in the 
desktop operating systems market. Further examples of these 
practices are evident in software releases subsequent to the court 
findings, further

[[Page 28278]]

justifying the need for strong measures that cannot be circumvented 
by Microsoft's interpretations of loose wording.
    - signed--;
    William J. Young
    Ph.D., Computer Science
    26069 Highway 72
    Golden, CO 80403
    CC:[email protected]@in
etgw



MTC-00028444

From: 
[email protected]@in
etgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:32pm
Subject: FW: Microsoft Settlement [CGEY Virus checked]
    Thanks,
    Gigi Burton
    Critical Technologies Recruiter
    425.990.6932 (Direct)
    425.802.1232 (Cell)
    425.990.6801 (Fax)
    CapCom 9976898
    http://www.usa.capgemini.com
    Send to: [email protected]
    My Opinion/Vote: Settlement needs to be completed and minimal 
penalties, if any, need to assessed and allow Microsoft freedom to 
be innovative, creative and competitive and survive in the world 
competitive economy and free market. At the rate the legal 
proceeding are going, throwing this case is completely an option.
    I am pro-settlement with Microsoft, DoJ and the nine states. The 
issues, who and why's are not reflective of the general populating 
and I am convinced this is being driven by Sun, IBM and AOL/Netscape 
and several other competitors who lack product creativity and 
success. After all the legal battles and information about harming 
consumers, at the end, you ask the general population and consumers 
thru the Tunney Act. If this was really truly driven by the 
consumers, I am pretty sure we would be hearing from them more then 
Sun, IBM, and AOL/Netscape funded legal battles.



MTC-00028445

From: Susan Greenbach
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 3:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear District Court Judge:
    I am writing to you to as I am frustrated with the prosecution 
of Microsoft. I am the Information Systems manager for our office 
and deal with Computers and Servers daily. Streamlining computer 
software and hardware can be the most difficult, time consuming and 
costly expense for our company.
    Compatibility and support are key. I appreciate that Microsoft 
has helped immensely with this task. We don't need this process 
mucked up by government intervention. I resent that the government 
does not believe that I can decide for myself which software/
hardware is useful to me. I can't believe our government views 
Microsoft as a threat, when after all it is Microsoft that has 
brought the industry to where it is....on real earnings, not 
``puffed-up'' .com hype. Don't forget the bubble bursting 
for the .communists and all of their venture capital. Those bringing 
suit are not individual consumers, but Microsoft's unsuccessful 
competitors. Failed businesses must not be allowed to set the rules 
for the markets in which they failed.
    Protecting some businesses from others is a dangerous policy. I 
want to see an America where success is embraced, not punished and 
throttled! Bill Gates is a self-made man who has brought America, 
the world, to new levels of progress. Microsoft has a fundamental 
right to its property, and it is the governments job to protect this 
right, not to take it away. Microsoft, should be lauded and left 
alone to continue to develop and prosper so that, we the people, can 
too.
    Susan Greenbach
    CC: `activism(a)moraldefense.com'



MTC-00028446

From: Dave Jorgensen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    This is a follow-up to my e-mail from 11am this morning. My 
earlier letter was intended for those handling the civil anti-trust 
suit against Microsoft. This additional letter is in regards to the 
federal anti-trust case. As a citizen of the United States of 
America, and an employee in the High-Tech sector of our nations 
economy, I feel compelled to write and voice my disagreement with 
the proposed federal anti-trust settlement with Microsoft.
    For the past two decades, I have watched again and again as 
Microsoft leverages its monopoly position to wipe out what were once 
healthy high-tech markets. While only a few of these cases have seen 
a courtroom, and while some would disagree about whether Microsoft's 
dominance in these instances has provided more pluses or minuses for 
the end customer, one thing is painfully clear: Microsoft has now 
been caught red-handed, showing the very worst of intentions, as 
they abused their monopoly position to destroy competition and seize 
control of the web browser market. What's more, Microsoft has shown 
in court, in the press, and in the marketplace, that they do not 
recognize their mistakes in this area. They are simply not capable 
of the kind of introspection, conscience and respect required to 
regulate themselves as a result of the findings of this case. As we 
have seen throughout this long ordeal, Microsoft shows an arrogant 
disrespect for the letter and spirit of the law; sometimes 
manipulating technical evidence, other times violating the temporary 
restrictions placed against them, all showing a clear pattern that 
they are truly unrepentant in their actions. The currently proposed 
settlement, which is basically that ``we won't do it 
again'' is laughable under the existing circumstances. I urge 
the Justice Department, The Court, The Judge, anyone else involved, 
to reject the currently proposed federal case settlement, which is 
merely a slap on the wrist (like so many slaps Microsoft has ignored 
before) and insist on pursuing truly punitive, active remedies 
against this company which is so wreckless in the marketplace and so 
disrespectful of the courts and of the American people.
    Short of breaking up the company (which I still think is 
justified) certainly there should be, at the very least, some hefty 
fines applied against Microsoft, and perhaps even a loss of property 
rights (creating an open source library for) the various technology 
pieces Microsoft has used for monopolistic anti-competitive 
leverage, such as Microsoft Office, Microsoft Internet Explorer, 
Windows 95/98/NT, and so on. For us to hesitate on doing this 
because Microsoft is a ``flagship'' for the industry, or 
because their products are now such established, fundamental tools 
in our marketplace, really shows how entrenched and uncontrollable 
Microsoft truly is.
    Again, despite arguments of past or future behavior, at least in 
this case the findings are clear. Microsoft has been caught abusing 
its monopoly position in the worst of ways, to the intentional 
detriment of the browser market. Microsoft has shown that it cannot 
self-regulate, and that it usurps the court and the will of the 
people at every opportunity. There has to be a more severe 
consequence for such destructive actions and intent.
    Thank you for your consideration in this matter,
    David E. Jorgensen
    350 Budd Ave. #E7
    Campbell, California
    95008, USA
    e-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00028447

From: Wynn (038) Gail Williams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:43pm
Subject: Gail Williams
Gail Williams
P.O. Box 1693
Tahlequah, OK 74465-;1693
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am a proponent of free enterprise and believe that the 
government's interference with Microsoft hover the last three years 
has been appalling. How can our nation and economy grow if 
politicians and lawmakers keep attacking business?
    The antitrust lawsuit has been ridiculous and now that a 
settlement has occurred I see that Microsoft is being forced to 
grant broad new rights to computer makers to configure Windows so 
that competitors can more easily promote their own products. They 
are also forcing Microsoft to disclose for use by competitors 
interfaces that are internal to Windows operating system products.
    The terms of the settlement seem aimed at nothing more than to 
give competition an edge it did not have before. Nevertheless, your 
office has to finalize the settlement. Our economy cannot afford 
further litigation against Microsoft. I hope your office does what 
it can to deter the states still eager to sue.
    Sincerely,
    Gail Williams
    cc: Senator Don Nickles



MTC-00028448

From: D T
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 28279]]

Date: 1/28/02 3:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    In relation to my objection to the final settlement in the MS 
case, I want to point out several loopholes attributed to the 
Proposed Final Judgment.
    I am not in agreement to the oversight committee proposed by the 
PFJ. With in the confines of the settlement this committee must 
closely monitor and screen all activities by MS. This close scrutiny 
insures MS complies with all restrictions entailed in the agreement.
    A three man compliance team will oversee and insure that 
Microsoft comply with the stated rules and regulations. Yet, this 
three-man oversight committee will be composed of the following: one 
appointee from the Justice Department, one appointee from Microsoft, 
and another appointee chosen by the two existing members. In turn, 
Microsoft will control half of the oversight team.
    Also, in the likelihood of any enforcement proceeding, all 
findings by the oversight committee will not be allowed into court. 
The sole purpose of the committee is to inform the Justice 
Department of all infractions by Microsoft. Subsequently the Justice 
Depart will launch its own investigation into the matter and 
commence litigation to halt all infractions. When all is said and 
done, the oversight committee is just window dressing, who will not 
strictly oversee Microsofts business moves?
    In my opinion, the Proposed Final Judgment does not provide 
appropriate restrictions against Microsoft. What reassurance do we 
have against Microsofts illegal and illicit activities? I can assure 
you that the Proposed Final Judgment does not effectively nor 
sufficiently address the question. Subsequently, I again submit my 
objection to the final settlement in the Microsoft case.
    Sincerely,
    Doray Tualla
    Sacramento, CA



MTC-00028449

From: Mark Bohannon
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 3:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please find attached a copy of comments from the Software & 
Information Industry Association (SIIA) on the proposed PFJ in the 
case U.S. v Microsoft. Please do not hesitate to contact us if there 
is an error in the transmission or if you are unable to open the 
document. <>
    A Message from:
    Mark Bohannon
    General Counsel and Vice President for Government Affairs
    Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA)
    1090 Vermont Avenue, NW 6th Floor
    Washington, DC 20005
    Direct Dial: (202) 789-;4471
    Switchboard: (202) 289-SIIA (7442) x 1325
    Fax: (202) 289-;7097
    Internet: [email protected]
    SIIA 2002 Annual Conference: Trends Shaping the Digital Economy
    April 13-;16, 2002 San Diego, CA Hotel Del Coronado
    http://www.siia.net/spring2002
    CC:Ken Wasch,'Hilleboe Douglas''



MTC-00028450

From: David Grant
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to you today, giving official notice of my 
objection to the current DOJ anti trust settlement with Microsoft.
    As a small business owner and software developer I strongly urge 
you to reconsider your settlement. Microsoft is a successful company 
not because their products are superior in quality, but because Mr. 
Gates and his associates are excellent salesman.
    These salesman are selling the United States government into a 
shitty deal. For years, Microsoft's operating system alone grew to 
monopolistic power because of exclusive agreements with hardware 
vendors that eliminated any chance other competitors in that market 
had. The emergence of the Internet and the browser led to a weak but 
understandable argument that Microsoft intended to use ``brute 
force'' in the business world to eliminate its competitor.
    While I am all for the American way, and all for free trade and 
freedom of commerce, I believe along with many intelligent, educated 
professionals that the American way is now threatened by this 
settlement. This settlement will bind the United States government 
to a monopoly that should not exist, a monopoly that already hinders 
free trade and creativity. Being Microsoft Certified myself, I will 
leave you with this thought; Microsoft builds software for the lazy 
IT employee. While many people may be employed as IT professionals, 
these IT people are short minded and lacking pertinent knowledge. 
The arrogance this combination breeds; stupid people making good 
money, establishes security risks.
    At this point in time, the last thing the United States 
government needs is arrogant uneducated individuals at the helm of 
all the critical data in this country.
    David M Grant
    President
    Busy Data LLC



MTC-00028451

From: Tom Groman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    Please end the litigation against Micro Soft. What has been 
agreed to is a fair settlement for all concerned.
    Thank You,
    Rev. & Mrs. Tom Groman



MTC-00028452

From: Sunshine
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
7199 Bahne Road
Fairview, TN 37062
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    We wanted to write to you today to express our dismay over the 
Microsoft antitrust dispute. As Americans, we feel that this suit is 
contrary to the very ideals of free trade and capitalism that we 
treasure in this nation. It is our opinion that punishing a company 
or an individual for demonstrating the very cleverness and ingenuity 
upon which we have built this nation is un-American.
    Americans are unlike any other people in the world. It is our 
goal to become a success; to become something more than our fathers 
and grandfathers were; to start with nothing more than a good idea 
and a diligent work ethic and end up a success. This is the American 
dream, and it is this dream that is under attack in this suit.
    This litigation is not a question of whether or not Microsoft 
violated antitrust laws. It is a question of whether or not we, as 
Americans, have the right to become successful without the 
interference of the government. We are pleased that this heinous 
suit has finally reached a conclusion that is satisfactory to all of 
the parties involved. However, it is our fondest wish that none of 
this unpleasant litigation had begun in the first place. Please keep 
the government out of the private sector.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Don Crohan
    Gayle Crohan



MTC-00028453

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Good Afternoon,
    I certainly hope that you finally reach a settlement in this 
case and let one of the finest entities in America get on with 
business. Throughout my school years and all my years in busines, I 
have never received greater value and more productive tools than 
Microsoft software. MS Word and MS Excel are the envy of the 
software world as is the MS Windows operating system in all its 
versions. I am sure that all Microsoft's competitors are jealous; 
however, they should not be allowed to use the courts t achieve that 
which they cannot achieve through innovation. Sam Walton never 
resorted to the courts to beat out Sears, J.C Penny, K-Mart and the 
now defunct Ward's. He used innovation and fair pricing and we all 
get better value for that. WalMart is now the largest corporation in 
the world.
    Judge Penfield Jackson was so biased in his handling of this 
case that he should be removed from the bench. I thought that the 
federal courts operated at a much higher standard but am sorry to 
say they all don't.
    Michael F. Bartley
    3616 N. Knoxville Avenue
    Peoria, IL 61603-;1017



MTC-00028454

From: R M
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 28280]]

    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    I oppose the proposed resolution in the MS case, better know as 
the Proposed Final Judgment. Over and above the usual economic risks 
presented by an unchecked monopolist--;rising prices and 
monochromatic innovation the nations computer infrastructure will be 
increasingly vulnerable to attack if a single software system 
predominates.
    Obviously I am referring to Microsoft. Suppose that 80 or 
90percent of the world's grain supply came from a single variety of 
corns. We would be faced with the unacceptable risk that some single 
disease might wipe out an enormous portion of our food supply. In 
the same respects translate that example over to the Microsoft 
issue. Having only one kind of operating system or one kind of 
browser would make it terribly easier for saboteurs to bring the 
entire Internet to its knees. For one entity, such as Microsoft, to 
control 80 to 90 percent of the market for PC operating systems, 
Internet browsers, e-mail readers, and office productivity software 
is clearly a significant security risk. To then allow that monopoly 
to actively attempt to drive out its remaining competition would 
hardly be in the public interest. Diversity is the key in producing 
economic prosperity and improving the society as a whole. The PFJ 
goes against allowing diversity to flourish. Therefore I object to 
the Propose Final
    Judgment.
    Sincerely,
    Reynold Mamon
    179 River Pines Way
    Vallejo, CA 94589 CC: 
[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00028455

From: Randolph S. Kahle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
Randolph S. Kahle
6161 N Canon del Pajaro
Tucson, AZ 85750
28-January-2002
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I have worked in the computer industry for over 25 years. During 
that time I have worked as a developer, a marketing/business 
strategist, and as a consultant to large and small companies. I have 
a degree from Rice University in software and hardware design and an 
MBA from the Amos Tuck School of Business Administration at 
Dartmouth College.
    My work experience includes Hewlett-Packard as well as six years 
as a marketing and business strategist at Microsoft working on 
database and developer products. I have seen Microsoft from both the 
inside and now, for the last ten years, from the outside.
    As I am not an attorney, I cannot speak to the legal specifics 
of the Proposed Final Settlement, however, I am qualified to speak 
to the practical implications of the terms in the computer industry 
as well as other industries and markets into which Microsoft may 
enter.
    COMMENTS IN GENERAL
    As the computer industry moves towards a future, fully-
distributed, computing environment, it is vital to have an 
environment which fosters and rewards innovation. While it may seem 
a mature industry, we are still only at the early stages. To date, 
there have been several waves of general innovation and 
consolidation. Each wave brings cost reductions, creative ideas, 
whole new companies and new technologies. After a wave, there has 
been consolidation around standards and then the next wave appears. 
These waves could be named the ``mainframe era'', the 
``minicomputer era'', and the ``personal computer 
era''. We are now leaving the ``personal computer 
era'' and entering a new one centered on distributed computing 
and information, the ``distributed computing era''. As 
each era transitioned to the next, the companies and products of 
each successive wave accommodated the past, while providing new 
innovations. IBM anchored the mainframe era, Digital and Hewlett-
Packard emerged during the minicomputer era, and Microsoft, Dell, 
Gateway, and others emerged during the personal computer era.
    What is different about the current transition, is that a single 
company, Microsoft, is attempting to leverage their monopolistic 
power created in the personal computer era and their position in the 
industry to define and control the next era.
    COMMENTS ON CULTURE
    I worked at Microsoft before Windows was a monopoly. What I 
observed was a culture fixated on domination at all costs. While 
Microsoft was growing, these actions and activities were not 
illegal. After becoming a monopoly, they clearly are (and were found 
to be so by the courts). What is important to note is that these 
illegal behaviors stem from the culture of the company.
    Because of this strong culture, I do not believe that any 
external monitoring of internal operations would ever be successful 
(e.g. the ``TC'' as proposed). Microsoft managers are 
simply too smart, experienced, and aggressive to ever agree to 
submitting to external pressures. This comes from the top, Bill 
Gates himself. In my experience, I have never encountered a 
discussion in which anyone at Microsoft ever thought that they were 
in the wrong. This would never occur to anyone. This is a cultural 
factor, an arrogance of doing no wrong. With this culture, it seems 
extremely unlikely that Microsoft would be able to self-monitor or 
even work with an external auditing agency.
    REMEDIES
    My first choice for a remedy is to break Microsoft up into 
smaller competing entities. The reason for this is to attempt to 
reshuffle the organization so that there could be cultural and 
behavioral change. I petition the court to explore this remedy as 
the best way to combat future violations by Microsoft.
    If the court does not pursue a break-up of Microsoft, then I 
strongly agree with many others, that there must be changes to and 
additional provisions added to the Proposal Final Settlement. For 
example, I fully support, and have sign Dan Kegel's open letter 
(http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html).
    OPENNESS AND TRANSPARENCY
    My second choice for a remedy is to force openness and 
transparency in Microsoft's technology. Distributed computing 
systems are very complex and can be very subtle. To help the court, 
many other petitioners have listed specific technology disclosures 
that will help create openness. I will add that, in a general way, 
if Microsoft's technologies can be viewed by the industry and the 
market as *components* rather than as a *whole*, then a good balance 
may be struck between Microsoft's ability to innovate, and the 
industry's ability to compete and develop both complementary 
technology as well as competing technology. The tricky question is 
this: ``Where are the boundaries between the components?''
    A simple answer can be found by focusing on and leveraging the 
up- coming pressures that will be felt as the distributed computing 
era arrives. The answer I propose is simple, easily monitored and 
enforced:
    *Force Microsoft to fully disclose all wire-level 
(binary) protocols used between independent computing devices. (This 
include .Net protocols, SMB/NBT protocols for file sharing, and 
others)
    *Force Microsoft to disclose the APIs which they expect 
other components to use as they access the wire-level protocols.
    *Force Microsoft to fully disclose all file formats used 
to store persistent information.
    The reason these are good remedies relies on the following:
    *The future direction of computing is toward small, 
distributed computing devices. The economic and technological 
pressures will force the definition of boundaries between 
distributed components. This will be a constant pressure to
    *increase* disclosure over time.
    *It is easier to monitor and audit compliance at these 
boundaries compared to other more abstract and more easily re-
defined boundaries. (Microsoft is a master at redefining boundaries 
for their own benefit).
    *These disclosures provide significant value to 
competitors and innovators.
    However, I must also point out that this is only a first step. 
This describes the technological boundaries and requirements. The 
Settlement must also address the legal issues such as Microsoft's 
attempt to prevent open-source software from running on Windows, and 
other licensing and cross-tie issues. I will leave these issues to 
the legal experts.
    Violation of the Settlement must bring with it a powerful and 
costly punishment. I propose that if Microsoft violates the 
provisions of the Settlement that they be forced to place any 
software or system found to be in violation or associated with a 
violation into the general domain through an open-source license. 
This, more than any financial penalty, would be a real deterrent.
    Regards,
    Randolph S. Kahle
    Tucson, AZ



MTC-00028456

From: Judy Quandt

[[Page 28281]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement



MTC-00028456--;0001

70 Konci Terrace
Lake George, NY 12845-;4101
January 24,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The settlement with Microsoft is in the best interests of the 
public and the economy. It not only will restore fair competition 
but also prevent future antitrust violations. But most importantly, 
the agreement will allow the technology industry to move forward 
with developing new products, rather than further burdening it with 
government lawsuits. The settlement has imposed many restrictions on 
Microsoft. For example, Microsoft has agreed not to enter into any 
agreements with any third party to promote any Windows technology 
exclusively. Additionally, Microsoft has agreed to a technical 
committee that will monitor the company's compliance with the 
settlement. Furthermore, Microsoft has agreed to design future 
versions of Windows to make it easier for computer makers and 
consumers to promote non-Microsoft software within Windows. Clearly, 
these changes will benefit both consumers and the economy.
    The most impressive part of this settlement is that it includes 
matters that were not even at issue in the lawsuit. Enough is 
enough. Let's stop wasting money and time on unnecessary litigation.
    Sincerely,
    Judith Quandt



MTC-00028457

From: M M
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    I oppose the Proposed Final Judgment in relations to the 
Microsoft case. As one can plainly see, Microsoft continues to 
violate business practices. The Proposed Final Judgment does not 
punish Microsoft for its past violations to the anti-trust laws. 
Based on supporting evidence found by the Court of Appeals, 
Microsoft is guilty of breaking several anti-trust laws. Under the 
final settlement, Microsoft is permitted to retain most if not all 
profits gained through their illicit activities. Subsequently, the 
PFJ will not compensate parties injured or harmed through Microsofts 
egregious misdeeds. In addition, the PFJ will not take into account 
all Microsoft gains made through its illegal maneuverings. With all 
due respect, the final settlement is basically acknowledging the 
acceptance of Microsofts anti-competitive behavior. What kind of 
message does this send out to the public? I can assure you that the 
message is clear and simple. The PFJ encourages big corporations to 
engage in monopolistic and predatory conduct, which in turn is 
detrimental to the technology industry at large. With all due 
respect your honor, I am outraged at such a preposterous proposal 
that only helps Microsoft to remain intact and continue with its 
unethical practices. In conclusion I submit to you my objection to 
this Proposed Final Judgment.
    Best Regards,
    Mylene Mamon
    179 River Pines Way
    Vallejo, CA 94589
    CC: 
[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00028458

From: Norwood Catron
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am an IT professional, specializing in providing Microsoft 
solutions for small to mid-size businesses. I've worked in the field 
for four years now, and have used Microsoft operating systems and 
applications for fifteen years. I've invested considerable time and 
financial resources in becoming an expert with Microsoft products 
and have obtained several Microsoft specific certifications. My 
continued livelihood will continue to depend on Microsoft's 
dominance in the market.
    Having said that, I feel strongly that the currently negotiated 
settlement does not do enough to punish Microsoft for past 
anticompetitive behavior or to prevent such behavior in the future. 
I don't believe that a break up of the company is a solution. The 
lines between application and operating system are quickly 
disappearing. Future technologies will continue to blur those lines. 
But I feel that Microsoft has used strict contracts with OEM's as 
well as unnecessary integration of applications into the OS 
(Internet Explorer in Windows 95/98/ME/2000 and XP, and now Windows 
Media Player in XP) to hinder consumer choice and competition.
    In addition to the solutions already proposed, Microsoft should 
be forced to open the source code to ALL operating system API's, and 
quite possibly the entire OS. This would allow competing application 
developers to successfully create applications that work correctly 
with Microsoft operating systems. I feel strongly that the 
inaccessibility of the API information was one of the reasons 
Netscape, Corel, Novell and other application providers have had 
such a difficult time distributing bug free software.
    Microsoft should also be strictly monitored in terms of its 
contracts with OEM's and other providers. Currently, if a consumer 
purchases a new PC from a manufacturer, it is quite literally 
impossible for the consumer to get one without a Microsoft OS. And 
if a consumer is successful at such an endeavor, that consumer can 
not be properly reimbursed from the OEM or Microsoft for the 
Microsoft software costs that are automatically incorporated into 
the cost of the PC. It is imperative that the federal government 
return the operating system and application market to a more stable 
playing field. As well it is important that Microsoft make 
reparations for past wrongs. Please reconsider the current 
settlement, and come up with more appropriate and harsher 
consequences. Microsoft must not get off with just a slap of the 
wrist.
    Sincerely,
    Norwood Catron
    Independent IT consultant and concerned consumer
    [email protected]
    23747 Vassar
    Hazel Park, MI 48030



MTC-00028459

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:44pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    It is time to end the persecution of Microsoft. This persecution 
could set a precedent that can ultimately have dire consequenses to 
our American system of free markets. Should the D of J pursue legal 
action against McDonalds for the benefit of Burger King and Wendy's? 
Or Intel, or General Motors, etc?
    The government should not be a tool of one group of 
businesses'' attempts to gain ground on their competition. I am 
not an employee of Microsoft, nor do I own, nor have I ever owned 
any Microsoft stock. I purchase their products solely because they 
are the best on the market.
    Andre Schan
    41 Horseneck Road
    Montville, NJ 07045



MTC-00028460

From: R M
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    I object to the Proposed Final Judgment in the Microsoft case. 
There are several apparent flaws with in the final proposal that I 
just dont like. One the PFJ does not terminate the MS illegal 
monopoly. 2nd MS will be able to continue with its ant-competitive 
activities. 3rd MS will be allowed to partake in the fruits of its 
past violations. I dont see how such a settlement punishes Microsoft 
for breaking the anti-trust laws. Therefore I oppose a settlement- 
The Proposed Final Judgment.
    Sincerely,
    Rose Mamon
    179 River Pines Way
    Vallejo, CA 94589
    CC: 
[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00028461

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:47pm
Subject: Microsoft
January 25,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am frustrated that, despite all efforts to serve justice, 
problems continue to arise in the Microsoft antitrust case. Now, 
even as a settlement is pending in the federal courts, Microsoft's 
opponents are seeking to overturn the settlement and bring 
additional litigation against Microsoft. This is highly 
inappropriate. Microsoft has done nothing to warrant such vicious 
persecution except be

[[Page 28282]]

successful. The litigants who seek to overturn the settlement have 
no altruistic aims--;they only want to squeeze all the profit 
they can out of Microsoft.
    After six months of supervised negotiations, Microsoft and the 
Department of Justice were able to reach a settlement in the 
antitrust case. Microsoft's opponents claim the settlement is too 
lenient and that Microsoft has merely received a slap on the wrist, 
but such is not the case. Some of the terms agreed to in the 
settlement extend to products and policies that were not found to be 
unlawful by the Court of Appeals; Microsoft has agreed to these 
terms in the interest of wrapping up the case. I agree that it is 
time to settle and move on, and I do not think the settlement is in 
any way unfair. For example, Microsoft has agreed to license the 
Windows operating system to twenty of the largest computer makers on 
identical terms and conditions, including price. Additionally, 
Microsoft will refrain in future from retaliating against anyone who 
produces software that directly competes with Microsoft technology.
    I do not believe that additional action is necessary on the 
federal level. Microsoft has paid its debt to society, and it is 
time to let this go. I ask you to support the settlement in its 
entirety.
    Sincerely,
    Donald Decker
    183 San Remo Road
    Carmel, CA 93923



MTC-00028462

From: Andy Oliver
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:48pm
Subject: Microsoft must be strongly punished for illegal behavior
    Microsoft must be strongly punished for its anticompetitive 
behavior. As a software developer for the past 10 years, I have 
witnessed first hand the detrimental effect of the Microsoft 
monopoly on innovation and pricing. Punishments must be far stronger 
than the proposed settlements in order for them to have any effect 
on Microsoft's behavior.
    Please break up Microsoft and force the separate groups to 
publicly document all programming interfaces (APIs) and file 
formats, with strong, regular oversight.
    Thank you.
    Andy Oliver
    Professional Software Developer
    andy--;o--;[email protected]



MTC-00028463

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think it is unfair for the government to punish companies for 
being successful and that is what is happening here.



MTC-00028464

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam--;
    Regarding the settlement of the antitrust case with 
Microsoft--; Microsoft's unethical and anticompetitive business 
practices must be stopped. There must be an injunction or other 
legal device, or Microsoft must be split into separate business 
entities in order to restore competition. Microsoft's operating 
system must be unbundled from its internet browser and other 
software so that the consumer and free market will determine the 
best products and foster healthy competition.
    I have purchased several software packages such as spreadsheet, 
word processing, project scheduling that I greatly preferred over 
the Microsoft products; however, they are no longer available for 
update due to the unfair competition from Microsoft. I have been 
personally hurt by Microsoft in that I am forced to use inferior, 
crash prone software.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Sincerely,
    KR Schroepfer
    310 Rider RIdge
    Santa Cruz, CA 95065
    1-;831-;809-;1561
    [email protected]



MTC-00028465

From: Bob Peterson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
    I'm writing this to you because I'm gravely concerned over the 
settlement between our DOJ and Microsoft. There is no teeth to the 
settlement. It places too much trust in a company that is not 
trustworthy and has proven as such over its entire history. All that 
it will do is enhance Microsoft's grip on the desktop market and 
allow it to expand and also destroy other areas. Already the signs 
are everywhere that with every step in Microsoft's control and 
destruction of our computing industry, innovation has crawled to a 
near stop. When I say innovation, I am referring to the true meaning 
of the word and not another mad-twist meaning from Microsoft when 
they use ``innovate'' as part of their questionable ad 
campaign.
    I am a user of Linux. Lately, I've noticed that Microsoft has 
increasingly tried to squeeze out non-windows platforms by their 
usual dirty tactics. It used to be that I could access my hotmail 
account. Now I'm forced to have a Passport account. Passport is a 
Microsoft product and Microsoft refuses to support a Linux version 
of Passport. Remember the debacle with MSN.com not allowing any non 
Internet Explorer browsers to visit their site? While on the subject 
of Internet Explorer; who on earth wants to view their file 
directory as a webpage (like in the Windows operating system)? This 
is the result of you allowing Microsoft to tie-in their browser and 
falsely claim that it's an integral part of Windows. It is not 
necessary and anyone with a slight understanding of computers should 
know that... except for some reason the DOJ.
    As part of the settlement you Microsoft must be forced to sell a 
version of Windows without all the predatory tie-ins. And they must 
be forced to port all their applications to other operating systems. 
Those ported applications must be of equal quality and 
functionality. Typically, when Microsoft ports their software to 
another platform (Mac), that software is usually a crippled version 
of the windows original. They can claim that Windows is superior and 
thus providing more features but any software engineer would say 
otherwise. Then Microsoft must provide all the necessary 
specifications for 3rd party software vendors so as not to give 
Microsoft another area of unfair advantage.
    Another point to bring up is the myth that Microsoft is good for 
our economy. Is it? I don't think so. How can Microsoft justify 
charging hundreds of dollars for an operating system that is no 
better than its previous version? The cost of manufacturing is 
nearly zero. But yet, everyone PC owner including businesses are 
strong-armed into buying this poor excuse for an upgrade. Those 
businesses are then forced to pass on that cost to the consumer. The 
cost amounts to a heavy burden on our national economy. Then 
Microsoft uses this money not to truly innovate and create more 
secure software, but to use their legal monetary might to crush the 
competition. Thus putting more people out of jobs. This is bad for 
our economy.
    So please do not let Microsoft escape unscathed with yet another 
blatant violation of the law. Just look around you. The software 
landscape is nearly bare in the Windows market as far as 
``genetic'' diversity. Without strong restrictions on 
their business tactics, we will be left with a very weakened 
engineering base as the world will continue to truly innovate. 
Having our schools teach Microsoft products instead of real software 
engineering will amount to suicide of the knowledge base. Then we'll 
have to answer to our children and grandchildren when they ask why 
we have to import quality software from Asia and Europe. And, why we 
had such a lead in that field and chose to allow one company 
(Microsoft) to sabotage everything we've worked for. Do the right 
thing now before it's too late and we lose everything.
    Sincerely,
    Bob Peterson
    1007 NE 126th
    Seattle, WA 98125



MTC-00028466

From: 
[email protected]@inetg
w
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:46pm
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

[[Page 28283]]

most dynamic industry the world has ever seen.
    Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Christine Corea
    38777 Road 600
    Raymond, CA 93653-;9504



MTC-00028467

From: Julie Rocheville
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle this ugly dispute with Microsoft NOW! MS has 
created more jobs and has done more positive things for the US 
economy than any other employer in history. Do us ALL a favor and 
keep Windows together. It truely is time for you say ``enough 
is enough'' and get back to some more pressing issues. J
    on & Julie Rocheville



MTC-00028468

From: N T
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    I do not approve of the Proposed Final Judgment in the MS case. 
First of all every one know the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled 
unanimously that Microsoft had clearly violated anti-trust laws. It 
was understood as well as established that the government was in the 
process of developing a plan the accomplished the following: abolish 
the illegal monopoly implemented by Microsoft, deny MS the fruits of 
its past violations, and last but not least prevent further anti-
competitive activity or behavior by MS. To my bewilderment, I cannot 
yet fathom how it is possible the Department of Justice would agree 
to such an egregious settlement that for the most part goes against 
all objectives stated previously in the MS case. Logically this 
proposal does not accomplish what the U.S Court of Appeals set 
forth. Therefore I am submitting my disapproval of the Proposed 
Final Judgment in the Microsoft Case.
    Sincerely,
    Nils Trulssen
    1742 Edgewood Dr.
    Lodi, CA 95240



MTC-00028469

From: Charlotte Muse
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:50pm
Subject: 
    I am writing to let you know that in my opinion the proposed 
settlement between Microsoft and the Department of Justice is a 
travesty. Microsoft's predatory behavior represents a profound 
threat to the health not only of the technology sector, in which I 
work, but of US industry as a whole, and of the United States 
itself.
    If Microsoft can dictate its terms to the US government, who is 
it that really governs?
    I urge you to reinstate the eminently fitting decision of 
Justice Jackson, and break the company up so as to separate the 
ownership of the operating system from that of the desktop 
applications.
    Charlotte Muse
    1020 Louise Street
    Menlo Park, CA 94025



MTC-00028470

From: Andy Warner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Person,
    I have been employed by Netscape Communications for nearly five 
years as a software developer and I've been in the Information 
Technology field for over 20 years. Microsoft should not be allowed 
to destroy companies at their will, whenever they feel threatened by 
new technologies or decide to expand into a new market. Obviously, 
they can put any company into near bankruptcy, by using the revenue 
from the monopoly OS business to fund development and give away 
competing products. Allowing that behavior to continue will 
dramatically slow the growth rate of new technologies by giving the 
perception that the profits from those very difficult efforts can 
easily be taken away by the likes of Microsoft. Anything short of 
severe punishment will just signal that its ok to steal market share 
and destroy businesses as a tactic of growing your business. If that 
were allowed, then any business that has more money than another 
business can destroy it by simply building a competing product and 
giving it away until you've put them out of business. Is that the 
kind of business environment that we are trying to promote in this 
country? This is a great opportunity to show all businesses that 
integrity and fairness is a requirement to do business in the United 
States. That the people of the United States will not allow unfair 
market take-overs by giving away products to destroy companies. We 
could now show investors that their investments in new technologies 
will be protected from the predatory practices of companies like 
Microsoft.
    This is not the time to allow ``politics as usual'' 
and hinder the investment in new technologies by showing that once 
you begin selling your new idea, any larger company can develop a 
similar product and give it away until your bankrupt. If you wonder 
where all the investment is in Silicon Valley startups, just think 
about the signal that we've given investors through the Microsoft 
trial. Who would want to invest in building new products knowing 
that if your successful your business will be stolen from you by any 
wealthy company that has the inclination.
    Thanks,
    Andy Warner



MTC-00028471

From: Laurie Wieder
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 4:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am e-mailing to you a copy of the letter we are attempting to fax 
to you at 202-;616-;9937 in support of the Microsoft 
settlement. We will keep trying to fax the letter to you, and we are 
placing the original of the letter in the mail.
Laurie Wieder
President
Prince William Regional Chamber of Commerce
``The Region's Leading Voice for Business''
4320 Ridgewood Center Drive
Prince William, VA 22191
(703) 590-;5000 (703) 590-;9815 fax
www.RegionalChamber.org
<>
PRINCE WILLIAM REGIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
4320 Ridgewood Center Drive
Prince William, VA 22192
703-;590-;5000
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20630
RE: Comments on the Microsoft Proposed Settlement Agreement
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    The Prince William Regional Chamber of Commerce is writing this 
letter to express its support for the settlement reached by the U.S. 
Department of Justice, nine state attorneys general and Microsoft in 
the long-running antitrust lawsuit initiated by the federal 
government.
    The Region's Chamber is critically aware of how important it is 
to our national economy that all businesses be able to ``get 
back to business.'' There were many knowledgeable people guided 
by an internationally recognized mediator to reach the Microsoft 
settlement. We believe that additional litigation, following on the 
heels of many years of costly legal proceedings and on the 
subsequent work of those in mediation would serve only to prolong 
the negative impact on our economy of the Microsoft litigation.
    Therefore, the Prince William Regional Chamber of Commerce, an 
organization of more than 800 businesses in the Prince William area, 
respectfully encourages the U.S. Department of Justice to urge the 
Courts to adopt the agreement with all due speed so that business 
and our national--;and even international--;economy can move 
forward again with certainty.
    Sincerely,
    Carol A. Kalbfleisch
    Chairman of the Baord
    Laurie C. Wieder
    President



MTC-00028472

From: Emily L Hughes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:49pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20530-;0001
    John
    I am writing you today to encourage you to accept the Microsoft 
antitrust settlement. This issue has been drug out much more than 
necessary.
    Microsoft has agreed to design future versions of Windows to be 
more effective for other companies software. They've also agreed to 
all other terms of the settlement.
    Why is our court system punishing Microsoft? What are they 
afraid of?

[[Page 28284]]

    Please accept this antitrust settlement, so our court system and 
Microsoft can get on with other more productive issues.
    Thank you.
    Emily Hughes
    Bellingham, Washington
    CC:[email protected]@
inetgw



MTC-00028473

From: rshwake@mailhub-
4.net.treas.gov@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Though I am not an attorney, I have followed this case from the 
beginning and am appalled that Justice could consider accepting such 
a settlement. It does not address the criminal wrongdoing described 
in the Finding of Fact, nor the Findings of Law, almost all of which 
were upheld by the Appeals Court. More critically, there is neither 
punishment nor adequate means in place to prevent Microsoft's 
current market dominance from being leveraged into new ventures. The 
control mechanisms (``three person team'') is a joke, and 
the ``exceptions'' provide, as some have described it, 
``loopholes on loopholes''. I can only hope that Judge 
Kottelly has the sense to reject this proposal for failing the test 
of ``public interest''.
    Raymond Shwake
    [email protected]



MTC-00028474

From: Arthur Vardy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Dear Sirs:
    Get off a Microsoft and do something worthwhile like take on 
Enron.
    Sincerely
    Beverly Vardy



MTC-00028475

From: C T
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    I wanted to make my opinion count. In turn, I object to the 
Proposed Final Judgment in the MS case. As history will prove, 
Microsoft continues to violate business practices. The Proposed 
Final Judgment in a sense, does not deny Microsoft its past 
violations and illegal acts. As one can see, every court, which has 
been involved with the case, has found Microsoft guilty of breaking 
the anti-trust laws. However, under the proposed final settlement, 
Microsoft, surprisingly enough, will be permitted to retain most if 
not all profits gained through their illicit activities.
    Subsequently, the PFJ will not compensate parties injured or 
harmed through Microsofts egregious misdeeds. In addition, the PFJ 
will not take into account all Microsoft gains made through its 
illegal maneuverings. With all due respect, the final settlement is 
basically acknowledging the acceptance of Microsofts anti-
competitive behavior. What kind of message does this send out to the 
public? I can assure you that the message is clear and simple. The 
Proposed Final Judgment encourages big corporations to engage in 
monopolistic and predatory conduct, which in turn is detrimental to 
the technology industry at large. I am angered at a proposal that 
only helps Microsoft to remain intact. Therefore I submit my 
objection to this Proposed Final Judgment.
    Kind Regards,
    Cookie Trulssen
    1742 Edgewood Dr.
    Lodi, CA 95240
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00028476

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    With all that has been said, I will be brief and to the point:
    (1) Microsoft has been a great partner to our firm, G. A. 
Sullivan, and has been instrumental in helping us grow dramatically 
during the last decade. Among the honors we have received, Greg 
Sullivan, our founder, was named the 1999 U.S. Small Business 
Administration National Small Business Person of the Year. The 
success we have enjoyed has often been due to our strong partnership 
with Microsoft.
    (2) Competition is alive and well in our industry. In the 
operating system marketplace, for example, IBM has thrown its 
considerable clout behind Linux and is aggressively advertising this 
fact. During the recent National Football League NFC Championship, 
they ran advertisements using basketball players as a metaphor for 
computer industry products and forces. For example, the ?opposing 
team? included players named ?Hacker?, ?Virus?, and ?Downtime?. 
?Linux? was characterized as an incredibly talented player who would 
play for ?almost nothing? because ?he loves the game?. It remains to 
be seen how effective this ad campaign will be, but IDC predicts 
that Linux's market share will increase to 41% by 2005.
    (3) While Microsoft does have some advantages in its daily 
business operations, advantages that we believe they have earned 
through hard work, it also still faces formidable obstacles and some 
important disadvantages. For example, as Microsoft attempts to sell 
its operating systems and platforms to corporate America, in the 
largest corporations (sometimes called the Enterprise marketplace) 
they are often viewed with condescension as a ?desktop? vendor 
selling personal productivity tools, computer mice, and games. They 
continue to build a channel of partners to help provide the 
necessary services to install, configure, and support their 
offerings in large corporations, but face stiff competition from IBM 
Global Services, often an entrenched competitor of huge proportions. 
Other large service organizations are also most often working 
against, rather than for, Microsoft.
    (4) In many key areas of new research and growth (e.g. Personal 
Digital Assistants (PDAs), instant messaging, and highly scalable 
clustering for scientific purposes), Microsoft is a distant second 
or third place competitor to other firms and technologies (e.g. 
Palm, AOL, and Beowulf). To summarize our opinion?in almost every 
case Microsoft has been a tough but fair competitor in the 
marketplace. In the areas their practices were found anti-
competitive, the remedies that have already been recommended are 
sufficient.
    Microsoft has been a great partner to our firm, and we do our 
best every day to help ensure their success. Contrary to what many 
of Microsoft's competitors state, we find the marketplace to be a 
VERY competitive place, and hope that a more comprehensive ?remedy? 
is not enacted.
    CC:[email protected]@
inetgw



MTC-00028477

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm against the propsed settlement. It is way too easy on 
Microsoft.
    I think Microsoft should be broken up into 1) operatings systems 
and 2) applications.



MTC-00028478

From: Jeff Fabijanic
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    To whom it may concern:
    I am writing you today to express my concern and oppostition to 
the Proposed Final Judgement in the United States v. Microsoft 
antitrust case. I believe this settlement is counter to the best 
interests of the American people, harmful to our economy, and 
clearly inadequate given the findings of fact in the trial.
    As a professional computer user and technology developer for the 
past 15 years (over twenty five if you consider my student years in 
high school and then MIT), I have watched as Microsoft has used any 
number of unethical and anti-competitive strategies to attain and 
maintain dominance at the expense of other companies, competing 
software platforms and consumers such as myself. In this respect, I 
am satisfied with the findings of fact in the case, as they confirm 
this viewpoint.
    However, as upset as I am with Microsoft's past behaviours, I am 
extremely concerned that these same types of behavior are prevented 
in the future. Given the findings of fact, any judgement should 
demand strict measures which address not only the practices the 
company has engaged in previously, but which should also prevent 
them from engaging in other monopolistic practices in the future. I 
do not think that the Proposed Judgement is strong enough to serve 
this function.
    As I read the Proposed Judgement, many--;perhaps 
most--;of the remedies will be ineffective against a company 
such as Microsoft which is determined to circumvent them. That 
Microsoft will work to bypass the original intent of the Judgement 
is clear for both technical and business practices--;even during 
the course of the trial and settlement negotiations it has continued 
to use tactics that should be blocked by a solid agreement.
    In fact just this month Bill Gates declared 
``security'' to be the future direction of Microsoft's 
focus. Of course, under the

[[Page 28285]]

Proposed Judgement anything related to security need not be 
disclosed even if such would otherwise be mandatory. Under a strict 
reading, if Microsoft adds even basic security interfaces to its 
APIs then *none* of those APIs would need to be disclosed and there 
would be no penalty for not disclosing them. And to add insult to 
injury, the settlement as written actually seems to codify some of 
Microsoft's predatory practices. For example, although the 
settlement forces Microsoft to share its APIs with certain 
competitors, it also would force those who use these APIs to share 
all their finished code with Microsoft. As a result, Microsoft would 
see these companies'' code trade secrets and have the 
oportunity to replicate or circumvent them.
    Another example--;a requirement for receiving documentation 
for those APIs is that any organization needing it must meet 
*Microsoft-developed* standards of business viability; ``non-
businesses'' (eg small or non-profit companies, and individual 
developers) probably won't qualify and so access to those APIs will 
simply not be available to them. Similarly, the clause requiring 
that Microsoft's competitors be allowed to place their own icons on 
the PC desktops only applies to companies which have already sold 
more than a million copies of their software in the U.S. So the very 
companies who most need a competitive advantage can not, in this 
case, receive it.
    There are numerous other problems or oversights in the Proposed 
Judgement. However, for the sake of brevity, I will limit my 
comments to this last statement--;I feel that the Proposed Final 
Judgement is deeply flawed and needs to be substantially revised to 
remove these flaws. Microsoft deserves more than a wrist-slap for 
the destructive abuse of its monopoly power, and all of us, 
including Microsoft and its investors, need to be protected against 
future abuses.
    Sincerely Yours,
    Jeff Fabijanic
    Boston, MA.
    Jeffrey Fabijanic
    MIT Media Lab Liaison
    Panasonic Information and Networking Technologies Laboratory
    [email protected] (617) 
577-;1280 x115



MTC-00028479

From: Stapleton, Mark
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 3:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Department of Justice:
    I am writing to comment on the proposed settlement with 
Microsoft. I believe that the settlement is fair for both Microsoft 
and consumers. Microsoft deserved a penalty for their behavior and 
the penalty is harsh enough for Microsoft to learn their lesson.
    Microsoft's competitors continue to fund lobbying efforts to 
overturn the settlement and inflict harsher penalties. The 
settlement is for the consumers, not competitors who find their best 
way to compete is fund lawsuits against Microsoft. An antitrust 
remedy should be designed to protect consumers rather than advance 
the interests of competitors.
    The Department of Justice must stand-by the settlement, and not 
allow competitor-funded lobbying efforts to sway them. In no way do 
the competitors (i.e. AOL, Sun Microsystems, Oracle) have the 
consumer rights in mind when they continue to pour money into 
lobbying efforts. They want to create harsher penalties on Microsoft 
so they may be better equipped to compete. If they did have the 
consumers in mind they would be pouring money into research and 
development to compete with Microsoft in the marketplace.
    It's time to end this with the proposed settlement and all these 
companies should get back to what they do best...create innovative 
products for consumers.



MTC-00028480

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:54pm
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,
    Gaynelle Jordan
    110 Breed St.
    Titusville, PA 16354-;2122



MTC-00028481

From: Xana Kim
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
    I must say that I am appalled at the proposed final judgment in 
United States v. Microsoft.
    Briefly, I do not feel that the settlement will in any way 
punish Microsoft for it's past violation of the law, nor will it 
prevent future violation.
    Xana Kim



MTC-00028482

From: Tommy Ward
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:44pm
Subject: Fwd: Microsoft Antitrust Comments
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 11:46:45 -0800
To: [email protected]
From: Tommy Ward 
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Comments
    >Dear Staff,
    >As a 20 year veteran in the network industry, I would like 
to take this >opportunity to provide my comments on the 
settlement of the Microsoft >anti-trust case. My opinions are 
based on both my professional experience >as well as my 
experiences as a consumer.
    >First, the currently proposed settlement terms reached by 
Microsoft and >Justice Department negotiators is completely 
inadequate to protect >consumers. It should be dismissed out of 
hand.
    >Second, controls must be put in place to guard against 
Microsoft's ability >to leverage their current desktop monopoly 
into effective control of the >public Internet. If they are able 
to dictate the terms and conditions by >which meaningful business 
can be conducted over the Internet, this >dynamic forum of social 
and business intercourse will be extremely >stifled. What would 
constitute such effective controls? Rather than >focusing on 
contracts with computer vendors (which might be a >reasonable 
choice if we were concerned about the maintenance of the >desktop 
monopoly), the controls should be aimed squarely at the 
>integration of all Microsoft software--;both client and 
server, with >no distinction between operating system and 
application--;with any >Internet services provided by 
Microsoft. If Microsoft chooses to >build support for 
authentication, payment, name resolution, routing, >search, or 
any other useful functionality into their software they >should 
be allowed to do so, as long as they do not also provide >such 
service which is accessed by that software.
    >An example of such integration which already exists is 
>the Passport system, whereby multiple Microsoft application 
>software products use common procedures to make use of an 
authentication >service provided by Microsoft over the Internet. 
An effective >curb on potential Microsoft abuse would be to 
disallow the company >to provide the Internet service portion of 
that function. If such a curb >is not implemented, Microsoft may 
be able to leverage their monopoly >on Internet client software 
into a very effective control over Internet >commerce. I suggest 
that the most effective method of implementing
    >such a control would be to force the company to divest all 
Internet >lines of business other than those which are used to 
market and >support it's software business.
    >If effective controls are not placed on Microsoft's business 
conduct, >this company will be able to leverage undue influence 
in practically >every area of public life in the United States, 
including commerce, >entertainment, news, personal 
correspondence, and government. Not >only would such a situation 
be bad for business, it would be detrimental >to democracy. We 
can not allow one company to threaten our >future in the way that 
Microsoft will if allowed free reign.
    >Regards,
    >Tommy Ward
    >Saratoga, CA
    >[email protected]



MTC-00028483

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw

[[Page 28286]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:59pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    Due to the various continuing suits against Microsoft, I am 
forced to exit Microsoft Explorer (the company's browser and 
entrance to the internet) and bring up AmericaOnLine to read and 
send email. My other choice would have been, again, to close 
Microsoft Explorer and to bring up Microsoft Outlook Express which, 
as you well know, is split off from Microsoft Explorer. But isn't it 
ironic; AOL is suing Microsoft over its overweening powers, yet I 
can use AOL for both purposes: to receive and send email AND TO USE 
THE INTERNET but I CANNOT use Microsoft Explorer to use both 
services. Just who IS the monopolist here?
    And last I looked on the tv screen, AOL, which also has a pretty 
good control of the NYC cable market, is spending zillions on 
advertising its AOL Time Warner direct cable hookup. And doesn't AOL 
have control of some magazines? and some TV stations? and some 
books? and some records? Excuse me, while I fall down the rabbit 
hole, said Alice. As a stockholder of Microsoft, Sun Micro and 
others and fortunate seller of AOL (at breakeven) and as user of 
Apple, Microsft Word etc and AOL since 1985, AND attempted user of 
Netscape which has been largely defunct since being taken over by 
AOL, I would find the not so sly tactics of the AOL/Sun etc gang who 
use stockholder monies to launch extensive and expensive litigation 
(which then becomes their raison d'Atre) laughable if it weren't so 
harmful to consumers, stockholders and profitably run businesses. It 
isn't just off balance sheet limited partnership that drain assets.
    My support for Microsoft is based on many years of using their 
products and services which have always worked smoothly, reliably 
and efficiently which is, after all, what I pay for. As a 
stockholder I find Microsoft reports earnings in a conservative 
manner and maintains a strong balance sheet both of which indicate 
the company tends to its business and is not wasting stockholder 
assets. Everytime the market sneezes I don't feel as though I am 
going to lose my entire investment in Microsoft as I might with 
others. If the interest is the consumer and the stockholder, 
Microsoft will win hands down. If not, we'll see just how fair the 
US markets really are.
    Ruth Sumners
    January 28, 2002



MTC-00028485

From: Bruce Wynn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:00pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The govenment, my government should make sure they understand 
that the consumer is not harmed by Microsoft it's products are 
cheaper than and better ever. Is Microsoft not allowed to compete, 
it should be allowed to compete and those cry babies Sun, Oracle and 
AOL will just have to make better products rather than lobby with 
governments about a competior--;Microsoft. They are trying the 
exact same thing in Europe and I hope our legislators see through 
this smoke screen and see the facts Microsoft has superior products 
and the market proves that.
    I feel the government should not pursure any further actions 
against Microsoft. I believe the terms-which have met or gone beyond 
the findings of the Court of Appeals ruling-are reasonable and fair 
to all parties involved. This settlement represents the best 
opportunity for Microsoft and the industry to move forward. 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.
    Bruce Wynn



MTC-00028486

From: Lawrence A. Husick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Appropriate injunctive relief in an antitrust case should: (1) 
end the unlawful conduct; (2) ``avoid a recurrence of the 
violation'' and others like it; and (3) undo its 
anticompetitive consequences. See Nat'l Soc'y of Prof'l Eng'rs v. 
United States, 435 U.S. 679, 697 (1978); United States v. E.I. du 
Pont de Nemours & Co., 366 U.S. 316, 326 (1961); Int'l Salt Co. 
v. United States, 332 U.S. 392, 401 (1947); United States v. 
Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34, 103, 107 (DC Cir. 2001) The proposed 
settlment fails utterly to achieve these goals. Rather, it is 
another opportunity for Microsoft to litigate the definitions of the 
settlement, rather than participate fairly in the market. A 
settlement which leaves Microsoft free to hide features and 
functions of its operating system behind license restrictions and 
nondisclosure agreements, and then to use these functions to 
advantage its own applications development process and products is 
inadequate. The source code of Microsoft's operating system must be 
published and made available at nondiscriminatory rates to all users 
in order to prevent future misuse of this substantial advantage by 
Microsoft. The source code to Microsoft's Office products must be 
auctioned to vendors wishing to compete with Microsoft, whether on 
the Windows platform or elsewhere in order to redress the violations 
that use of these hidden functions by Microsoft has created. 
Microsoft must create an independent, not-for-profit entity, 
transfer title to its Internet Explorer code to that entity, and pay 
royalties for each copy of IE to that entity, which should then use 
the proceeds to fund development of software products which function 
across multiple platforms in order to open up the application 
development arena to non-Microsoft products.
    Lawrence A. Husick
    LIPTON, WEINBERGER & HUSICK
    Intellectual Property and Technology Law
    [email protected]
    http://www.LawHusick.com
    P.O. Box 587
    Southeastern, PA 19399-;0587
    610/296-;8259 Voice 610/296-;5816 Fax
    AOL/Netscape IM: LawHusick
    ``It is, in fact, nothing short of a miracle that the 
modern methods of instruction have not yet entirely strangled the 
holy curiosity of inquiry.''
    --;Albert Einstein (1879-;1955)--;Autobiographical 
Notes
    This electronic message transmission contains information from 
the law firm of Lipton, Weinberger & Husick which may be 
confidential or privileged. The information is intended to be for 
the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the 
intended recipient, please be aware that any disclosure, copying, 
distribution or use of the contents of this message is prohibited.
    If you have received this electronic transmission in error, 
please notify us by electronic mail 
([email protected]) immediately, before 
we get in really big trouble. If you fail to be intimidated by this 
notice, we will get angry, stamp our feet, and hold our breath until 
we turn blue. Thank you.
    (Official-Looking Notice V1.5fc3)



MTC-00028487

From: Frank Zepf
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:01pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
52 Pennsylvania Avenue
Massapequa, NY 11758
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft: The antitrust suit against Microsoft has gone 
on for long enough. I believe that this suit is just trying to gore 
the fat cat just because it is fat. If Time Warner packages Netscape 
with AOL, then what is the harm with Microsoft packaging Explorer 
with Windows? This suit's contradicting demands are having a 
detrimental consequence on the nation's financial situation.
    The settlement that was reached between Microsoft and the 
Justice Department will be beneficial in reviving consumer 
confidence. Microsoft has agreed to license its Windows operating 
system to 20 of the largest computer makers on identical terms and 
conditions. The settlement instructs Microsoft to also make all 
future versions of its Windows to be compatible with non-Microsoft 
software.
    The settlement may seem to challenge the free-market, but it is 
vital to settle the case to help provide assistance in revitalizing 
the economy.
    Sincerely,
    Frank Zepf
    Frank V. Zepf
    52 Pennsylvania Ave.
    Massapequa, NY 11758-;4838
    Phone 516-;798 0353



MTC-00028488

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Your Honor,
    After reading and listening to the mass of information being 
presented to the general consumer regarding a potential miscarriage 
of justice, it would appear to me that I may have a rather unpopular 
opinion. I'd like explain my thoughts, but before I do...I need to 
clarify that I do NOT work for, recieve monys from, nor do I get any 
special benefits from either party in doing so.

[[Page 28287]]

    We've seen what Apple computer tried to do in the past, by 
making everything they make propriatory. The average working person 
can't afford the equipment, let alone the software that works ONLY 
on their system. Tandy corporation (Radio Shack) tried to do the 
same thing, and nearly sunk them financially. ....because of 
Microsoft. Seems to me that if a competitor can't come up with a 
competitive system, ad a competivitve cost...they cry monopoly. If 
any legal decision favors these flag carrying towncriers of 
``healthy competition'.....the ONLY ones that will benefit from 
it, will be them!
    I don't know if I'm adequately articulating my position, but I 
just feel if 10,000 people can easily afford to buy a computer, and 
use software that's readily available, it's better for those 10,000 
people than if say only 1,500 could afford to pay the EXTREMELY high 
prices of a system made by Apple or Sun technologies. It's true the 
profit to Apple and/or Sun is considerably higher from these 1,500 
than the 10,000 working class like myself, but in my 
opinion...through all the smoke and mirrors...that's what this is 
REALLY all about. $$$$$$ Yes...monopoly CAN be a bad thing, but the 
only thing Microsoft is guilty of is providing an easy to use 
product at a low cost. Something the others just can't seem to do.
    Go with your instincts, and stick with ``Of the People, By 
the People.....and FOR the people''. It's an old system...but 
it still works.
    Thanks for your time,
    Steve Shockley
    PO BOX 237
    West Creek NJ 08092
    PS: It would interest me greatly to know if you ever recieve 
this letter.



MTC-00028489

From: Donald E. Barlow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Forwarded by Donald E. Barlow/PSG/Prudential on
01/28/2002 04:00 PM
``Microsoft's Freedom To Innovate Network''

Monday January 28, 2002 03:55 PM
To: 
``donald--;[email protected]'' 

cc:
Subject: Attorney General John Ashcroft Letter
Attached is the letter we have drafted for you based on your 
comments. Please review it and make changes to anything that does 
not represent what you think. If you received this letter by fax, 
you can photocopy it onto your business letterhead; if the letter 
was emailed, just print it out on your letterhead. Then sign and fax 
it to the Attorney General. We believe that it is essential to let 
our Attorney General know how important this issue is to their 
constituents. The public comment period for this issue ends on 
January 28th. Please send in your letter as soon as is convenient.
When you send out the letter, please do one of the following:
* Fax a signed copy of your letter to us at
1-;800-;641-;2255;
* Email us at [email protected] to 
confirm that you took action.
If you have any questions, please give us a call at 
1-;800-;965-;4376. Thank you for your help in this 
matter.
The Attorney General's fax and email are noted below.
Fax: 1-;202-;307-;1454 or 
1-;202-;616-;9937
Email: [email protected]
In the Subject line of the e-mail, type Microsoft Settlement.
For more information, please visit these websites:
www.microsoft.com/freedomtoinnovate/
www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-settle.htm
(See attached file: 
USAGBarlow--;Donald--;1044--;0124.doc)
The confidentiality of Internet e-mail cannot be guaranteed. 
Information you send us over Internet e-mail could be viewed by 
persons other than the intended recipients.
Therefore, you should not include your account numbers, credit card 
numbers, passwords, home address or other private information in 
your e-mail messages. Also, we will not accept buy or sell orders or 
cancels, address changes, funds transfer requests or other 
instructions normally requiring your signature by e-mail.
All market prices, data and other information in this communication 
are not warranted as to completeness or accuracy and may be subject 
to change. This communication is not an official record of your 
account and should not be relied upon for information regarding your 
account. Please refer to your Trade Confirmation and Client 
Statement which are the official records of your account. If there 
are any discrepancies between this transmission and your Trade 
Confirmation and Client Statement, you should rely on the Trade 
Confirmation and Client Statement and contact your local branch 
manager with any questions.
This information is being sent to you for your information or at 
your request. If you do not wish to receive any further information 
about our products or services, please send a message via e-mail to 
PS--;DO--;NOT--;[email protected]
. Prudential Securities Incorporated
One Seaport Plaza New York, NY 10292
610 Old York Road Suite 400
Jenkintown, PA 19046
January 28,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am sending you this brief message to simply say I favor a 
swift settlement of the Microsoft anti-trust case. This case has 
gone on long enough. After four years of litigation, appellate 
hearings and constant clamor the parties have a fair and workable 
settlement proposal, endorsed by the court, your department, 
Microsoft and the majority of state complainants. The proposal 
should be ratified and the case closed.
    The settlement requires Microsoft to radically alter its 
business practices and its philosophy. Microsoft will now be 
required to configure its Windows platforms in a manner that readily 
accept non-Windows software. The company will be required to license 
its Windows systems to major computer Manufacturers on uniform 
terms. Microsoft has agreed not to use retaliatory practices against 
manufacturers whose products compete against its product. It has 
promised generally to abjure any predatory or anti-competitive 
market practices. It has agreed, as I said above, to adopt a whole 
new market philosophy that encourages not just competition, but its 
competitors. Surely such concessions are sufficient consideration 
for an end to this lawsuit.
    Please support this agreement and help bring this case to a 
close.
    Sincerely,
    Donald Barlow
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00028490

From: Alan Q. Thompson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My name is Alan K. Thompson. I live in Riverdale, MD, am a US 
citizen, and am 37 years old. I feel that the proposed DOJ 
settlement with Microsoft is a travesty of justice. The Sherman 
anti-trust act was created to prevent the sort of illegal extension 
and protection of monopoly for which Microsoft has been found 
guilty. Microsoft has demonstrated in the past that it will use 
every arguably legal means to avoid restrictions on its actions, and 
the proposed settlement will allow it too much room. A much more 
structurally enforced remedy, such as that proposed by Judge Jackson 
in the original conviction or proposed by the ``dissenting 
states'' in early December 2001, is necessary to restore 
competition to this vital segment of the economy.
    Thank you.
    Alan K. Thompson
    4711 Sheridan Street Suite 316351
    Riverdale Park, MD 20737



MTC-00028491

From: WILLIAM YOCUM
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:02pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    WHAT DESIRE WOULD ANY COMPANY HAVE TO DEVELOP PRODUCTS, IF THEY 
WERE NOT PROTECTED BY PATENTS??? NONE. THIS IS WHAT THE GOVERMENT IS 
TRYING TO TAKE FROM MICROSOFT. GET OFF THEIR BACKS.



MTC-00028492

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Please see attached> Sincerely Earl 
R. Ramsey
3705 Arctic Boulevard #1451
Anchorage, AK 99503-;5774
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530

[[Page 28288]]

    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    As a retiree who has been following this Microsoft antitrust 
case, I must admit I was disappointed that this case was even 
brought to court. There are so many other companies with a high 
market share like Cisco and Oracle. No one pursued those companies. 
Microsoft has been great for the economy, for the shareholders, and 
for technology. What are the ramifications for this country, if 
litigation were to continue another four years? Would Microsoft be 
able to survive? They are already vulnerable, now that they've 
agreed to disclose portions of their source codes in their operating 
system to the competition.
    Microsoft has been more than cooperative in resolving this 
matter and agreed to terms well beyond what is expected in any 
antitrust case. That ought to be enough.
    Let's stop the litigation so the government can focus on more 
pertinent issues. Not only is it good for the company, but for the 
economy as well. Thanks for your consideration in this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Earl Ramsey



MTC-00028493

From: EON
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
United States Department of Justice
 601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    I am very concerned that the proposed Microsoft settlement is 
not in the public interest. My fear as a computer user is that the 
all important freedom of choice which distinguishes our democracy 
will be further eroded. I appreciate your attention and hope you 
will include the following in your considerations.
    My objections include the following points: 1) The settlement 
leaves the Microsoft monopoly intact. It is vague and unenforceable. 
It leaves Microsoft with numerous opportunities to exempt itself 
from crucial provisions.
    2) The proposed settlement ignores the all-important 
applications barrier to entry which must be reduced or eliminated. 
Any settlement or order needs to provide ways for consumers to run 
any of the 70,000 existing Windows applications on any other 
operating system.
    3) Consumers need a la carte competition and choice so they, not 
Microsoft, decide what products are on their computers. The 
settlement must provide ways for any combination of non-Microsoft 
operating systems, applications, and software components to run 
properly with Microsoft products.
    4) The remedies proposed by the Plaintiff Litigating States are 
in the public interest and absolutely necessary, but they are not 
sufficient without the remedies mentioned above.
    5. The court must hold public proceedings under the Tunney Act, 
and these proceedings must give citizens and consumer groups an 
equal opportunity to participate, along with Microsoft's competitors 
and customers.
    Respectfully,
    Mary Beth Brangan
    117 Terrace Avenue
    Bolinas, CA 94924
    415-;868-;1901



MTC-00028494

From: Dave McGinley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Respectfully submitted:
    I oppose any settlement with Microsoft. I consider Microsoft's 
tactics to be monopolistic, unfair to competition, and predatory. 
Consider,
    I was an Apple computer user from the late ``70s. Apple 
computer is no longer a viable option do primarily to Microsoft. The 
original MS Office came out on the Macintosh. When Apple begin to 
compete with Microsoft (late 80's), the Office programs suddenly 
were no longer supported on the Apple Platform and then when again 
supported MS Word was interpeted causing painfully slow execution 
(early 90's). Finally, when Apple capitulated to MS, a new fully 
functional release was made late 90's. I was a Netscape Navigator 
user. After running in to so many e-sites that would not support 
Netscape I was forced to change to Internet Explorer. I was a Eudora 
e-mail user. Again I was forced to change to Outlook Express for 
compatibility.
    Lastly, when using an Apple Postscript printer, mysteriously, MS 
Office products would encounter errors printing. Research by my 
programmer showed MS had ``added'' a Postscript command of 
their own, thus preventing and Apple Standard Postscript command 
from executing without errors. The bottom line, if MS wants the 
market they have the financial and technical capability to drive any 
competitor from the market. Watch what happens with XBox vs 
Playstation and Ninetendo.
    HELP.
    Dave McGinley
    Pericle Communications Company
    1910 Vindicator Drive, Suite 100
    Colorado Springs, CO 80919
    [email protected] 
719-;548-;5014 Vx 719-;548-;1211 Fx



MTC-00028495

From: Thomas Saeda
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:04pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    2308 Delina Drive
    Las Vegas, NV 89134
    January 27, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    U.S. Justice Department
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am in support of the Microsoft antitrust settlement. It is 
clearly a compromise for both parties involved.
    This is, out of the possible options, one of the more reasonable 
choices. Restrictions have been set upon Microsoft by the government 
under the terms of this settlement. These include contractual 
restrictions on the promotion of Windows technology, relationship 
with software developers and design obligations.
    Please support this settlement. It is important that the 
technology industry concentrates on business now. The terms will 
mean a new wave of innovation, promoted by increased competition. I 
would appreciate it if the folks in Washington spent the 
taxpayers'' money in more efficient ways.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Saeda
    CC: Senator Harry Reid
    CC:[email protected]@
inetgw



MTC-00028496

From: bruce guenard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:04pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Dear Judge,
    I am( just) a personal user of computers and software since 
1982. I have not read all the legal docs, but have followed the rise 
of the personal compuger industry for about two decades. Microsoft 
has produced good products and bad products. The culture of 
Microsoft,(like the culture of Enron) is unhealthy: Before the death 
of Lotus 123, the Microsoft mantra was``DOS isn't done 
``til Lotus won't run.'' The ``winner take all, damn 
the ethics'' attitude of MS might be tolerable if there were 
real competition in the operating system(OS) market. But there is no 
competition. No admission of guilt, no repentance. 
``Innovation'' to Microsft is finding new ways to squeeze 
dollars out if the public. Microsoft will *always* use its OS and 
browser monopoly to maintain and extend it's illegal monopolies.
    If It's a monopoly, it must be regulated. But when has Microsft 
ever followed a judges'' order or an anti-trust law it doesn't 
like? Better, separate the OS/Browser business from the rest of 
Microsoft. THEN use a couple billion of MS illegal profits to fund 
at least two open source OS alternatives, like Lindows. (using all 
MS internal tech data) IF there is real competition in the OS 
market, the public can choose to use or not to use MS products on 
their merits, not because the OS/Browser demands it.*
    We don't want the Chinese Communists creating a Linux future for 
the Intel/AMD* PC do we?
    Bruce Guenard
    san jose ca
    * There are no good analogies to the power the OS has over the 
consumer. What if GM were the only car maker in earth and it sold a 
car, but licensed the key? The key controlled the gas and brake and 
would only work properly if the car contained GM manufactured 
products. The car crashes a lot, but really crashes if not using GM 
tires, gas, oil, batteries etc. And the key quits working after 5 
years. Break a key, out of luck. Just buy a new car and license the 
key
    Car costs $19,999.00. Key licences for $1,990.00 for driving in 
the city, $2,990.00 to go to the suburbs or out of state. (relative 
pricing of home vs prof versions.) If your spouse or kids want a 
key, they must buy a license, too.

[[Page 28289]]

    ** With AMD battling Intel in the CPU market, hardware prices 
drop, with real choice. With the Microsoft OS Monopoly, forced 
upgrade prices rise. Let there be the end of software monopolies!! 
(pardon my spelling)



MTC-00028497

From: mike k
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I believe that Microsoft has proven that they can and will find 
a way to sidestep the intent of the judgement against them. They 
will likely muddy the waters in such a way that the details of the 
settlement will become largely irrelevant. I believe that the 
current judgement is not enforceable against such a slippery 
company.
    thank you,
    Mike Kirita



MTC-00028498

From: Des Owens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I find the DOJ proposed settlement with Microsoft to be a 
disgrace! Microsoft after snookering the original preparer of PC DOS 
was handed a monopoly by IBM. They have exploited that monopoly in a 
number of illegal ways. After being found guilty, they are now being 
rewarded by the DOJ with such weak ``punishment'' and 
unenforceable behavior restrictions, that Microsoft can now declare 
victory and continue on their merry way. Considering the 
relationship between Microsoft and the Bush administration, the 
money and the Ballmer visit to VP Cheney, one might have expected 
the DOJ to recuse itself.
    This is an ``honorable'' administration--;value is 
given for value received!
    Yours truly,
    Desmond H. Owens
    1839 Kirkmont Drive
    San Jose, CA 95124



MTC-00028499

From: Benjamin Curtis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please consider this email a vote for not allowing the proposed 
settlement to stand. Microsoft has previously ignored and/or 
violated previous decrees, and have continued to exhibit predatory 
business practices to both establish and maintain their monopoly in 
the technology sector. The current proposed settlement does not go 
far enough to ensure that competition will be restored to the 
marketplace, and is not in the consumer's interest.
    Microsoft has used various means to eliminate any and all 
threats of competition, including hiring away critical employees of 
competing companies (Borland), eliminating a profitable market for a 
software segment (Netscape), and integration of new products with 
current market-dominating products (Microsoft Word vs. Word 
Perfect). An oversight committee trying to enforce disputable 
sections of the settlement will simply be no match against both the 
entrenched competition-killing culture of Microsoft and the cadre of 
attorneys used to support that culture's goals. Instead, more 
drastic measures, such as those proposed by the nine dissenting 
states, should be put in place to help restore the competition that 
Microsoft has so effectively eliminated.
    There are certain details of the proposed settlement that would 
seriously weaken the settlement if it were to be implemented as it 
currently drafted. For example, very little consideration is given 
to competition that may come from non-profit-oriented organizations 
such as the developers of the SAMBA project. This project's main 
goal is to provide software to allow users of other operating 
systems to provide file-sharing services in a network including 
Microsoft Windows clients. SAMBA's developers have had to 
continually adapt to Microsoft's changing of APIs and protocols to 
achieve this goal. The provisions in the current settlement proposal 
for releasing of API information simply are not stringent enough to 
be effective, as they don't address in enough either sharing APIs 
with non-profit groups or the timeliness of those transfers of 
information. SAMBA has been the only effective competition to 
Microsoft when it comes to file-sharing in dominantly Microsoft 
Windows environments, and this settlement does little to encourage 
that competition. Granted, this is only one case of a weakness in 
the proposal, and the settlement is not intended to benefit any one 
specific entity, but this is an example of how there are significant 
weaknesses in the settlement's ability to help restore competition 
and to be in the public interest.
    In summary, this proposed settlement is not in the public 
interest for many reasons--;many of which have been well 
documented elsewhere. Please do not allow the best interests of 
consumers to be forgotten. Please do not endorse this settlement. 
Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Benjamin Curtis
    15 Lake Bellevue Drive, Suite 202
    Bellevue, WA 98005
    425-;454-;0088



MTC-00028500

From: Mary
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the Justice Department:
    I am deeply disturbed by the prosecution of the Microsoft 
Company and Microsoft Chair Bill Gates. With Microsoft products, I 
have had the option of using other manufacturer's software and was 
often supplied at hardware purchase with software like Lotus and 
Claris and browsers from Mosaic to Netscape. I have received 
immeasurable benefit from the features of Microsoft products and 
they continue to be my preference. The reason I say this is that I 
very much resent the prosecution's contention that I am some kind of 
helpless consumer that can't even pick which software suits my 
purpose. And I don't believe the Justice department has the right to 
tell me what kind of deals I can make with my supplier. The court's 
job is not to protect one business from another, but to arbitrate 
contracts and protect individual and property rights (businesses are 
owned by individuals). Microsoft products are not a threat to 
anyone. As I remember, this case didn't start with consumers like me 
feeling ripped-off, or even with a violation of any contract between 
Microsoft business partners. It started with Microsoft's 
unsuccessful competitors! Since when do competition's losers get to 
sue? I want to live in a country where anyone with enough on the 
ball, putting in sufficient effort, can be a self-made-man like Bill 
Gates. That is the American Dream. It is a fundamental right! I want 
to know that my country is there to protect my right to my property, 
not to worry that if I succeed that my own country will take it away 
from me and turn it over to my competitors.
    Sincerely,
    Mary Bachmann
    136 Galleon Loop N.E.
    Ocean Shores, Washington 98569
    P.S. If I (the consumer) have been wronged, shouldn't I be the 
one getting the settlement?



MTC-00028501

From: Troy Harkey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to you to express my support for the settlement 
reached between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. Consumer 
confidence in tech stocks has dwindled as the federal case has 
dragged on. Since the US District Court entered its judgement 
against Microsoft on April 3, 2000, we have witnessed a historic 
decline in investor confidence in the technology industry. The 
technology-heavy Nasdaq Composite stock index, which managed to get 
as high as 4504 that day, now rests comfortably below 2000 
representing a loss of 56%.
    Now we are in a recession. Massive layoffs are announced every 
week. Once mighty companies are folding. I believe it is time to put 
this issue to rest and enact the settlement.
    Microsoft has made many concessions throughout this process. 
They have agreed to disclose the protocols of their windows system. 
This means that Microsoft will be required to make its proprietary 
information available to competitors. I wonder if those companies 
will have to share their proprietary data with Microsoft? It seems 
to me we should be rewarding innovative companies not penalizing 
them, or slicing them up, and feeding them to the competition.
    I can remember when DOJ disassembled AT&T. As a result, my 
local telephone service is now far less reliable and much more 
expensive. I can?t even get anyone to answer the phone at the phone 
company to address a problem with my bill!
    Finally, I would like to state that the enactment of the 
settlement will benefit the technology industries. Microsoft has 
done its

[[Page 28290]]

share to resolve the issue. Please enact the settlement reached in 
November.
    Sincerely,
    Troy Harkey



MTC-00028502

From: Frank M. Kepics
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm writing to voice my opinion regarding the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. I believe that the proposed settlement is woefully 
inadequate as a deterrent to the anti-competitive and monopolistic 
business practices employed by Microsoft currently or in the future. 
Enactment of this agreement as currently proposed will be 
ineffective in establishing a competitive business environment in 
the software industry.
    I am strongly opposed to the terms and conditions imposed by 
this agreement and would like to see a re-negotiated settlement that 
provides more safeguards to competition and effective enforcement 
than that offered by the currently proposed ``slap-on-the-
wrist'' agreement.
    Respectfully,
    Frank M. Kepics
    *Frank M. Kepics*
    *School of Biomedical Engineering,*
    *Science and Health Systems*
    *MS 7-;709*
    *Drexel University*
    *3141 Chestnut St.*
    *Philadelphia, Pa. 19104* **
    *(215) 895-;2221 (voice)*
    *(215) 895-;4983 (fax)*



MTC-00028503

From: Carl Kipp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    WHAT.
    This is the penalty in the main DoJ suit after MS lost the 
appeal. The supression of Netscape's browser is the primary issue, 
but loss of BeOS is as bad.
    HARM.
    The MS IE bowser has been a main entry point for viruses, and 
its extensions have harmed the www. Tim Berners-Lee (who DID invent 
the Web) dislikes the damage propietary MS extensions has done. His 
goal was equality of operation across platforms.
    MS has harmed Opera, Netscape by GIVING IE away. MS has harmed 
Carl Kipp by corrupting sites and starving the publisher of my 
preferred browser: NetScape Communicator! This is written on 
NetScape's e-mail program!
    REMEDY?
    I request forcing MS to be split (the original penalty) or 
source code opened without the ``security'' exemption. 
MS's recent ``$1 Billion'' settlement proposal for another 
suit is typically self-serving. They account their $10 MS Office 
package cost as ``$600'' retail AND hook students in the 
education market.
    This is like letting the tobacco companies pay their fines in 
cartons of cigarettes!
    US Judge Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly is going to look at OUR 
public comment on the remedy/penalty now that Microscoff has been 
confirmed
    GUILTY!
    Letting Microsoft off easily leads to:
    World ``Dumb-in-Nation''!
    Carl Kipp
    Columbus, OH, 43202
    In Unauthorized Windos 95, Andrew Schulman (wizard & editor) 
has many quotes from the DoJ vs MS [``settled'' out of 
court, 1994!] including his own congressional testimony. One was 
from a MS VP who said ``...my job is to see that Microsoft gets 
a fair share of the application market. I define that as 
100%.'' Perfidy.
    This case is an outgrowth of that one. MS agreed to not bundle 
the browser, did it anyway and claimed it was built-in. A lie, as 
testimony showed. I own 98Lite a program which merely uninstalls the 
IE browser.
    Drug on the market.
    MS's recent ``$1 Billion'' settlement proposal for 
another suit is typically self-serving. They account their $10 MS 
Office package cost as ``$600'' retail AND hook students 
in the education market. This is like letting the tobacco companies 
pay their fines in cartons of cigarettes!
    Or the Carlos Lehder, of Medellin cartel pay fines in cocaine 
packets!
    Judge T.P. Jackson did compare MS to a dealership.
    Damage to Society.
    Microscoff is bad for innovation. [See Caldera's suit for damage 
to DR-DOS. See Borland.].
    Microsloth is bad for programmers. [You don't program, you use 
MFC objects. Dumb.]
    Microstuff is bad for IT. [No one understands their proprietary 
stuff. Even MS! See IIS buffer over run. See the FBI warns MS about 
security. See Universal P'nP holes] Microscruff is bad for ZDNet, a 
media company. [Users have given up understanding. ZD loses readers 
looking for enlightenment.
    They are since under new management.] ZDNet editor Kingman said 
``No single company, not even Microsoft, is the enemy.'' 
WRONG. MS=Dumbination The GATES to Dumb-in-Nation!
    Carl Kipp
    Columbus OH, 43202



MTC-00028504

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please see attached document, explaining my feeling about the 
treatment of Microsoft. Thank You Ellen M Ramsey
    3705 Arctic Boulevard #1451
    Anchorage, AK 99503-;5774
    January 26,2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    As a retiree who has been following this Microsoft antitrust 
case, I must admit I was disappointed that this case was even 
brought to court. There are so many other companies with a high 
market share like Cisco and Oracle. No one pursued those companies. 
Microsoft has been great for the economy, for the shareholders, and 
for technology. What are the ramifications for this country, if 
litigation were to continue another four years? Would Microsoft be 
able to survive? They are already vulnerable, now that they've 
agreed to disclose portions of their source codes in their operating 
system to the competition. Microsoft has been more than cooperative 
in resolving this matter and agreed to terms well beyond what is 
expected in any antitrust case. That ought to be enough.
    IF MERGEFIELD PARA2 But clever people like me who talk loudly in 
restaurants, see this as a deliberate ambiguity. A plea for justice 
in a mechanized society.
    Let's stop the litigation so the government can focus on more 
pertinent issues. Not only is it good for the company, but for the 
economy as well. Thanks for your consideration in this matter.
    IF MERGEFIELD PARA5 But is suspense, as Hitchcock states, in the 
box. No, there isn't room, the ambiguity's put on weight.
    Sincerely,
    Ellen M. Ramsey



MTC-00028505

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:07pm
Subject: Mirosoft Settlement.
    I feel that the provisions of the agreement are reasonable and 
fair to all of the parties involved. This would be the best 
opportunity for MSFT and the industry to move forward. Please accept 
the agreement. Donna Platt



MTC-00028506

From: S P Arif Sahari Wibowo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the settlement proposal is NOT good enough:
    The technical comittee should give written report to the public, 
and answer questions from the public as much as they can.
    The time of remedy should allow growing of competition, 
therefore 5 years are not enough, it should be a least 10 years.
    Thanks you.



MTC-00028507

From: Wesley Williams
To: Microsoft ATR,Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:10pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I am a stockholder in microsoft and i believe the settlement 
should be completed as soon as posible. Approval of the settlement 
would be in the best interests of all concerned, in my opinion. 
Please consider approving the settlement. Thank you for your 
consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Wesley Williams



MTC-00028508

From: Richard A Martin (DTG)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    Please read my attached letter...
    Richard Martin, Senior System Architect/President
    Dominion Technology Group, Inc.

[[Page 28291]]

    mailto:[email protected]
    (614) 529-;1284 Home
    (614) 216-;7197 Cell
    Richard Martin
    Assistant Professor
    DeVRY Institute of Technology
    (614) 253-;7291 x2551
    mailto:[email protected]
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am a professor at a technical college, and work as an IT 
consultant. I acknowledge that there are legitimate reasons that 
brought about this case three years ago, but Microsoft become 
powerful not by being a predatory attackers, but by making excellent 
products. This case should not punish Microsoft for being the 
industry leader, but should rule that exclusionary practices should 
be changed. The concerns that give merit to the case have been 
addressed with the introduction of new Microsoft software, and that 
provisions are in place under the agreement that will ensure 
competition in the market.
    The concerns of independent vendors, computer makers, and 
software engineers all have been taken into account to produce 
licensing and development changes within Microsoft software. 
Protocol has been set up to ensure that Microsoft remains a 
responsible industry leader by forming oversight committees and 
reevaluating future lawsuit guidelines. I do not understand what 
more can be done at the federal level. This case has already had an 
impact on the industry and the economy, and the effects of Microsoft 
being broken up would be devastating. The loss of standardization 
and operability would halt innovation, and might jeopardize our 
country's position as the world leader in technology development. We 
must resolve this case, and the sooner, the better. The necessary 
steps have been taken to foster competition, and would like to see 
the settlement given a chance to prove itself.
    Sincerely,
    Richard Martin
    CEO



MTC-00028509

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Renata B.Hesse,
    On behalf of the computer dummies please settle this case for 
the ordinary computer user, because we prefer Microsoft to be 
allowed to continue to innovate simple software.
    Thank you.
    Sicerely,
    Myrna Rogoff



MTC-00028510

From: Fred Savalli
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:10pm
Subject: Please Settle Microsoft Suit
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am very adamant the lawsuit against Microsoft is unwarranted 
and should never have started in the first place.
    I believe it was politically motivated by significant 
contributions of Netscape to the Democratic party. Further the suit, 
I believe has contributed to the down turn in the economy.
    I fully suport for settlement that the DOJ has proposed. If 
Microsoft deems this settlement fair then I will support Microsoft's 
decision to comply. If you ask me, the lawsuit has only helped to 
strengthen Microsoft as a company rather than fulfill the intentions 
of the opposition--;to tear the company apart.
    Microsoft's willingness to comply should be some indication of 
the caliber company we are dealing with--;a company that 
possesses true leadership. One of the signs of a great company is 
the willingness to concede when it is evident that alternative 
choices are limited. I don't the think the concessions on 
Microsoft's part where as much an admission of guilt as it is 
Microsoft sincere desire to get back to what they do 
best--;innovate!
    If the remaining opposition were to truly look closely at this 
case they would see that Microsoft has not gotten of easily as they 
have implied in the past. Microsoft will have to basically strip 
themselves of their competitiveness by allowing significant access 
to their internal interfaces and intellectual property.
    Microsoft's efforts to comply, the disastrous effects on the 
economy, the vast of amounts of tax payer dollars spent should be 
plenty of reason to bring a speedy end to this case. I hope you hear 
the plea of the public and wrap up this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Frederick Savalli
    1523 Tangerine Street
    Clearwater, Florida 33756



MTC-00028511

From: Justin Lower
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    As a long time BeOS (Be Inc. Operating System) user I cannot say 
how disappointed I am in what remedy's have been discussed to deal 
with Microsoft's monopoly. These remedies are for me, the consumer, 
yet I have no doubt that when all is said and done that Microsoft 
will still be a monopoly, that I will remain to have a very, very 
limited choice of operating systems to use. (I don't consider Linux, 
BSD, etc to be valid choices--;few companies have been able to 
provide a easy, usable operating system that does not require a 
degree in Computer Science to feel one is in control.) Apple and Be 
Inc. are the only choices I had apart from Windows in the last 5 
years or more. Now, with the BeOS ``dead'', largely due to 
Microsoft's illegal bootloader license forcing system vendors to 
ignore Be Inc. or ,worse, to force a dual boot system to ignore the 
BeOS partition unless ``activated'' (see what Hitachi had 
to do to ship a system with BeOS preinstalled) I have little choice 
but to move to the Macintosh platform.
    Remedy? There are plenty of methods where Microsoft could be 
forced to pay for illegal activities and possibly save the BeOS 
platform. They could be forced (with Palm's understanding) to 
purchase the BeOS/BeIA source code--; forced to pay community 
developers to remove all third party code and release it to the 
public as open source. I sure that other options are 
available--;ones that might be more realistic, but the fact 
remains--;if the settlement does not result in the renewed 
development of the BeOS then I will have considered it a failure.
    Justin Lower
    746 E 19th Ave #4
    Eugene, OR 97401
    (541)484-;2353 <- Home #
    (541) 554-;7250 <- Cell #



MTC-00028512

From: Susan Chatman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
January 28, 2002,
    Dear Ms Hesse,
    I have been trying to understand the intricacies of the proposed 
settlement. I am very concerned that the final outcome does not 
promote a free market, and therefore allows Microsoft to continue 
monopolistic activities. It is best for the American consumers that 
viable alternatives to Microsoft have the opportunity to compete 
freely.
    I have a friend that has published several detailed and well-
argued points about the basic unfairness of the proposed settlement. 
Please do not let the free market be hijacked by Microsoft's 
lawyers. We must have access to code, alternative to both operating 
systems and application interfaces must be allowed to exist, and we 
should not let this proposed settlement go through the way it is 
currently written.
    Please reference http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html for 
more details on the specific changes that will help make this a much 
better settlement.
    Thank you very much for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Susan Chatman
    6665 Green Valley Circle, #322, Culver City, CA 
90230-;8111



MTC-00028513

From: Frances B. Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 28, 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001

[[Page 28292]]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    I would like to express Consumer Alert's support for acceptance 
of the Proposed Final Judgment to resolve the antitrust case against 
Microsoft. Consumer Alert, founded in 1977, is a non-profit, non-
partisan consumer group with individual members in all 50 states. In 
addition, Consumer Alert is the founder and coordinator of the 
National Consumer Coalition (NCC). The NCC is an on-going coalition 
made up of 23 non-profit organizations, with those groups'' 
members numbering over 3 million.
    In today's uncertain economic climate, it is in the best 
interests of consumers to have the issues settled and to bring to an 
end litigation that could further stymie our economic recovery. The 
agreement is needed to ``provide a prompt, certain and 
effective remedy for consumers.'' The technology sector and its 
resurgence could be vital to renewed economic growth, not only in 
the U.S. but in the world economy.
    The remedies provided in the settlement are far-reaching and 
address the business practices that the court found to be anti-
competitive. Offered by the U.S. Department of Justice, the proposed 
settlement was endorsed by nine State Attorneys General. The 
settlement could bring an end to litigation that has created an 
uncertain and disruptive climate.
    With this settlement, consumers likely will continue to benefit 
from the products and services offered by firms that operate in 
dynamic and rapidly changing markets and are innovative in their 
distribution systems. Those who would seek further redress would try 
to shape the markets of today into a narrow and static mold of 
competition--;one that would threaten consumer welfare. 
Satisfying the demands of competitors, at the expense of consumers, 
should not be the principal factor governing the resolution of this 
antitrust suit.
    Throughout the three-year litigation process, no evidence of 
consumer harm was offered. Instead, it appeared that competitors 
wanted the legal system to help them with their business plans. Some 
of those who are pressing for further restrictions may claim that 
those are needed to protect consumers from anti-competitive 
practices. Yet consumers are the ones who benefit from creative 
institutional and technological change and are far more likely to be 
injured by political restrictions on such change, especially when 
such restrictions favor competitors.
    Obstructing the agreement is likely to have widespread 
unintended consequences that could disrupt the continuation of these 
consumer benefits.
    Consumers are benefiting from intense competition that has 
?democratized? access to technology in the past decade. Not least of 
these are dramatically lower prices, ease of use for even the 
untutored, and the continuous unveiling of innovative products and 
services. Even during the past three years while this case was being 
litigated, technological advances continued unabated, many offered 
by Microsoft, but others portending new possibilities in information 
technology and new alignments.
    Consumers are the ones who benefit from the vibrant competition 
that exists. They are the ones who would suffer from further 
antitrust action or draconian remedies that attempt to delineate how 
competition should evolve. The nature and speed of institutional and 
technological change is misunderstood. Today, no one can predict the 
future of IT--;who the players will be and who are the likely 
winners and losers. Those who would use antitrust policy to mold 
their view of the future are likely to create impediments to 
innovation. Predicting where systems will go in the future is a task 
for markets and ultimately the customers in those 
markets--;consumers.
    Sincerely,
    Frances B. Smith
    Executive Director
    Consumer Alert
    1001 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 1128
    Washington, DC 20036
    Phone: 202-;467-;5809
    Fax::202-;467-;5814
    www.consumeralert.org



MTC-00028514

From: John Ilgen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:14pm
Subject: Public Comment on Microsoft Anti Trust Settlement
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I believe that the Department of Justice was justified in filing 
this lawsuit against Microsoft. I support the settlement that the 
Justice Department has proposed and think that any other action, is 
just Microsoft's competitors looking for judicial remedies for what 
they can't obtain the free market!
    As far as the nine remaining states action, there has been no 
loss to consumers as a part of Microsoft's actions. Microsoft sells 
in volume and at non monopolist prices. Just look at what its 
competitors charge for an operating system, Sun and Apple. In fact, 
it is Microsoft's products that have been the biggest contributor to 
productivity gains in the US economy in the last five years.
    I hope that the settlement will be sustained during this public 
comment period, and that there will be no further federal action 
against Microsoft, or any other American company.
    Sincerely,
    John Ilgen
    CEO
    CitationSoft Corp
    CC:John Ilgen



MTC-00028515

From: Tony Niesz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed Microsoft settlement is a gross miscarriage 
of justice. Microsoft is a convicted monopolist, and such a heinous 
one that the only possible competition is the decentralized, 
guerilla Linux movement that arose at the grassroots level in the 
face of Microsoft's anticompetitive tactics. In other words, 
Microsoft is such an abusive monopoly, that many of the world's most 
technically proficient volunteered their time and effort to provide 
an alternative, because any for-profit organization that tried would 
be run into the ground.
    People care about this case. This won't be swept under the rug; 
it will be remembered in future elections.
    Sincerely,
    Anthony D. Niesz



MTC-00028516

From: cole
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I oppose the proposed ``Microsoft Settlement'' that is 
now before Judge Kollar-Kotelly for consideration. MicroSoft 
represents how an inferior operating system can achieve and maintain 
predatory market monopoly through dishonest, unethical and illegal 
business practices. Break this monstrous company up!
    Audrey Cole
    270 West Cornwall Rd.
    West Cornwall, CT 06796
    28 January 2002



MTC-00028517

From: ROTH David R
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have been following the most recent case against Microsoft 
with considerable interest. Whatever objections may have been raised 
about the objectivity of the original judge, his conclusions about 
Microsoft's anti-competitive conduct were based on such persuasive 
evidence that no one outside Redmond has bothered to question it.
    He found that Microsoft's conduct was so consistently and 
pervasively corrupt in it's anti-competitive conduct, that there was 
no hope of reform without the most dramatic intervention. I agree 
with him that the company should be broken up, so that the operating 
system and the applications are developed and sold by separate 
companies. Short of that, it is obvious that the only effective way 
for the Government to prevent renewal of the abuses would be to 
establish a very comprehensive set of guidelines and strictures, 
with oversight sufficient to enforce them in the rapid and far-flung 
operation of the business.
    I recently signed the petition on this matter which has been 
circulated by Dan Kegel. I endorsed that petition because it does 
such a thorough job of identifying ways in which the proposed 
settlement misses the target. Please heed those warnings.
    The defenders of Microsoft originally argued that the Government 
could not hope to understand and supervise such a dynamic 
technology. Then the Government prosecutors successfully 
demonstrated impressive mastery of the issues, sweeping the defense 
aside in one master stroke after another. Wouldn't it be ironic if 
the new Administration threw away what the previous Administration 
had accomplished by formulating a settlement which was based on such 
a naive and simplistic approach to

[[Page 28293]]

the problem. Now that Enron is hanging around the new 
Administration's neck, does it want to add a sweetheart deal with 
Microsoft?



MTC-00028518

From: Don Carrington
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:13pm
Subject: Microsoft
Date: January 28, 2002
To: The United States Department of Justice
From: Don Carrington
Vice President, John Locke Foundation
 Raleigh, NC
RE: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft trial was a waste of taxpayers'' money and a 
significant disincentive to investors. While both Microsoft and the 
plaintiffs may be happy with the settlement, the truth is that the 
plaintiffs should never have filed this action to begin with.
    We have seen government sponsored lawsuits against the tobacco 
industry, against Microsoft, and now fully expect to see lawsuits 
against the fast food industry. While private parties should always 
have the freedom to use our courts, the rise in government sponsored 
lawsuits is a danger to our great country.
    This case should be ended as soon as possible, so I am in 
support of this settlement only to expedite the process.
    I have attached the following opinion piece from one of my 
associates.
    Please consider it a part of my official comment.
    Cooper Gets It Right on Microsoft
    By Dom Armentano and ROY CORDATO
    ``I have concluded that this settlement with Microsoft is 
in the best interest of North Carolina consumers.'' With this 
statement Atty. Gen. Roy Cooper announced that North Carolina, along 
with eight other states, has joined the U.S. Department of Justice 
in reaching a settlement in its antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft. 
Cooper should be commended for deciding to scrap this ill-conceived 
and ultimately anticonsumer lawsuit brought by his predecessor, now 
Gov. Mike Easley.
    The Microsoft antitrust case, as brought by both the Reno and 
Easley Justice Departments, was a mistake from the start. The fatal 
flaw was that the Reno-Easley argument against Microsoft was 
essentially a legal brief for Microsoft1s disgruntled competitors 
who simply could not compete. Antitrust laws prohibit restraints of 
trade and higher prices, yet Microsoft was prosecuted for the 
opposite behavior?for rapid innovation, increasing production, and 
lowering prices. Indeed, Microsoft was being prosecuted not because 
of its monopolist behavior but because it was being too competitive.
    Like most antitrust suits since passage of the Sherman Act in 
1890, the Microsoft case was not about protecting competition but 
protecting competitors.
    Postsettlement complaints by some of Microsoft1s competition 
bear this out. In urging the states to continue their war on 
Microsoft, Real Network1s Kelly Jo MacArthur said the settlement was 
a ``reward, not a remedy.'' Scott McNealy, CEO of Sun 
Microsystems, quipped that ``I can1t retire now?I can1t leave 
the world to anarchy.'' From McNealy1s perspective the world of 
falling software prices and innovative new products stimulated by 
Microsoft1s presence in the market is anarchy. Apparently 
``order'' is the pre-Microsoft world where consumers paid 
up to $1,000 for word processing and spreadsheet programs and 
internet users had to fork over about $100 to use Netscape.
    True competition always looks anarchic to those who can1t 
compete. Microsoft should be praised for refusing to cave in to 
ludicrous demands from self-styled ``trustbusters'' like 
Janet Reno and Mike Easley that it unbundle its web browser from its 
Windows operating system (appeasing Netscape) or that the company be 
split into three separate pieces. Instead, it courageously fought 
the government for years to arrive at what amounts to a legal draw 
and a victory for consumers.
    Ultimately the government got almost nothing, and consumers are 
better off for it. Under the consent decree, Microsoft is prohibited 
from engaging in exclusive dealing arrangements with original 
equipment manufacturers (OEMs), access providers, and suppliers, a 
practice it had all but abandoned anyway. Further, Microsoft is 
required to share its applications program interface code and allow 
all OEMs that license its Windows operating system more freedom to 
display non-Microsoft software applications. Again, Microsoft was 
already moving in the direction of what they call ``shared 
sources.'' Finally, Microsoft must charge OEMs published rates 
and offer them uniform discounts.
    But Microsoft is left entirely free to determine its own prices 
and discounts and change them at any time. This is crucial because 
it is Microsoft1s aggressive pricing strategies that have made the 
consumer software market as competitive as it is.
    Finally, Microsoft is a clear winner on the issue that first 
sparked the lawsuit: the tying of its Web browser to its operating 
system. Not only is that bit of efficient bundling now perfectly 
legal but more importantly, there are no specific restrictions on 
any future bundling of applications with operating systems going 
forward. This is the most important innovational development to come 
out of the settlement and it1s strongly pro-Microsoft and 
proconsumer.
    It was never in the interest of North Carolina consumers to be 
part of this witch-hunt. Nearly all antitrust suits are brought or 
instigated by competitors and are blatantly anticonsumer. Antitrust 
has a long history of prosecuting aggressively competitive companies 
that have innovated rapidly and lowered prices to consumers; this 
includes such famous cases as Standard Oil and IBM. Consumers and 
businessmen need free, open markets and they need protection from 
force and fraud, but they don1t need antitrust laws that hamper 
innovation and harm society. Three cheers for Cooper in his decision 
to settle the state1s suit against Microsoft, and solid brickbats to 
Easley for bringing it in the first place.
    Dom Armentano is professor emeritus in economics at the 
University of Hartford and author of ``Antitrust and Monopoly 
(Independent Institute, 1998) and Antitrust: The Case for Repeal 
(Mises Institute, 1999)''. Roy Cordato is vice president for 
research and resident scholar at the John Locke
    Foundation in Raleigh.



MTC-00028519

From: Jim Abell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear District Court Judge:
    I am writing to you to as I am frustrated with the prosecution 
of Microsoft.
    I am the Information Systems manager for our office and deal 
with Computers and Servers daily. Streamlining computer software and 
hardware can be the most difficult, time consuming and costly 
expense for our company.
    Compatibility and support are key. I appreciate that Microsoft 
has helped immensely with this task. We don't need this process 
mucked up by government intervention. I resent that the government 
does not believe that I can decide for myself which software/
hardware is useful to me. I can't believe our government views 
Microsoft as a threat, when after all it is Microsoft that has 
brought the industry to where it is....on real earnings, not 
``puffed-up'' .com hype. Don't forget the bubble bursting 
for the .communists and all of their venture capital. Those bringing 
suit are not individual consumers, but Microsoft's unsuccessful 
competitors.
    Failed businesses must not be allowed to set the rules for the 
markets in which they failed. Protecting some businesses from others 
is a dangerous policy. I want to see an America where success is 
embraced, not punished and throttled! Bill Gates is a self-made man 
who has brought America, the world, to new levels of progress. 
Microsoft has a fundamental right to its property, and it is the 
governments job to protect this right, not to take it away. 
Microsoft, should be lauded and left alone to continue to develop 
and prosper so that, we the people, can too.
    Jim Abell



MTC-00028520

From: Steve Love
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I haven't seen any improvement in Microsoft antitrust situation. 
I think the current settlement that lets the Microsoft corportation 
to not be divided is misguided and shortsighted.
    Steve Love [email protected]
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00028521

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:16pm
Subject: Settlement
    Dear Renata Hesse:
    I wanted to send you a brief e-mail expressing my hopes that 
``our'' government will settle the Microsoft case as soon 
as possible.

[[Page 28294]]

    I hate that because a man builds and muti-billion dollar 
business from the ground up that the government has to attack him.
    I believe given that the economy is now in recession the last 
thing we need is more litigation and regulation of the high-tech 
industry. This litigation is cost us millions of dollars that we 
could be using for Homeland Security. Also, there has been no 
consumer harm as a result of any actions taken by Microsoft. They 
have only helped us.
    Settlement of this case is in everyone's best interests ??? the 
technology industry, the economy and consumers.
    Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Monty C. Floyd



MTC-00028522

From: WILLIAM YOCUM
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:18pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    WHAT DESIRE WOULD A COMPANY HAVE TO DEVELOP PRODUCTS IF IT WERE 
NOT FOR PATENTS???. NONE. THIS IS JUST WHAT THE GOVERNMENT IS TRYING 
TO TAKE FROM MICROSOFT.



MTC-00028523

From: Daniel L Christie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:13pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    We strongly urge setllement of the microsoft suits as soon as 
possible why penalize micorsoft for being successful?We need 
microsoft to help lead the market ahead. dan christie and o.b.v. 
inc.



MTC-00028524

From: 
[email protected]@in
etgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:20pm
Subject: I believe consumer interests have been well served.
    I believe consumer interests have been well served.
    John R. Hunt



MTC-00028525

From: Frank Keenan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:22pm
Subject: Microsoft has continued to thumb
their nose at the Dept. of Justice. For the
approximately two yea Microsoft has
continued to thumb their nose at the
Dept. of Justice. For the approximately
two years, every PC sold has included
software giving one year FREE internet
service via their MSN. In the meantime
small internet providers across the
country are going out of business.
Typical Microsoft operation!
    Frank Keenan
    38 Gail Dr.
    Littleton, NC 27850



MTC-00028526

From: 
[email protected]@ine
tgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:13pm
Subject: public comment on microsoft
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I believe that the Department of Justice was justified in filing 
this lawsuit against Microsoft. I support the settlement that the 
Justice Department has proposed and think that any other action, is 
just Microsoft's competitors looking for judicial remedies for what 
they can't obtain the free market! As far as the nine remaining 
states action, there has been no loss to consumers as a part of 
Microsoft's actions. Microsoft sells in volume and at non monopolist 
prices. Just look at what its competitors charge for an operating 
system, Sun and Apple. In fact, it is Microsoft's products that have 
been the biggest contributor to productivity gains in the US economy 
in the last five years.
    I hope that the settlement will be sustained during this public 
comment period, and that there will be no further federal action 
against Microsoft, or any other American company.
    Sincerely,
    Paul Ilgen
    Northeastern Executive Group



MTC-00028527

From: Ken Wingert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:21pm
Subject: Fw: Microsoft Settlement
Ken Wingert
3000 Grand Ave, #910
Des Moines, IA 50312
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Anti-trust Division
US Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Attorney Hesse:
    Please accept the proposed settlement of the Microsoft antitrust 
suit.
    It has been four years since this case was first brought and I 
fail to see what we have gained. I strongly believe our government 
must consider the financial impact this case has had and the 
benefits our economy will gain if it is settled quickly.
    This lawsuit has had a very damaging effect on the technology 
markets. It was not that long ago that we all looked forward to the 
continued growth of the ``New Economy'' that revolved 
around the computer industry. Unfortunately, the DOJ's antitrust 
suit can be closely associated with the downfall of the NASDAQ. We 
can never forget that when the courts announced that breaking up 
Microsoft was the correct path to take, all technology stocks 
dropped.
    We have finally reached a point in this case that all parties 
have come together to negotiate a settlement. There can be no doubt 
that real compromises were made by Microsoft to put this case behind 
it. The best example of this is that Microsoft agreed to the 
establishment of an independent committee to monitor its actions.
    Please accept this fair settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Ken Wingert



MTC-00028528

From: Donald Bauer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:21pm
Subject: Please Enforce Antitrust Laws, Anticompetitive Practices
    Greetings:
    I am saddened and angered at the soft and non-punative nature of 
the proposed Microsoft settlement. You people owe it to your 
constituency of hard-working American men and women who feel you 
coziness with Microsoft is an outrageous affront to common decency 
and moral decency. Shame on you if you allow them to come out of 
this case with anything resembling the cozy, soft 
``penalties'' described in the brief of the proposed 
settlement. My friends, colleagues and myself feel this settlement 
has the appearance of undue influence with respect to Microsoft's 
business practices and the Federal Government's willingness to make 
them tow the line. Shame!
    Microsoft will continue to be an unfairly dominant player in the 
software market SOLELY BECAUSE of their ability to buy off or 
otherwise influence legislators and others within our Federal 
Government because their products are of such mediocre-to-poor 
quality that they would have trouble competing on a level playing 
field. Shame!
    Please do the right thing; please do the moral thing; please do 
your job and punish Microsoft in a manner that pleases average 
American consumers and taxpayers like me and dozens of my colleagues 
with whom I've spoken of this horrendously-handled issue. PUNISH 
MICROSOFT--;DON'T SUBSIDIZE THEM!!!
    Donald Bauer,
    California, USA



MTC-00028529

From: tom zukowski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:21pm
Subject: Microsoft
Tom Zukowski
5746 Oak Hill Road
Gibsonia, Pennsylvania 15044
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I feel bittersweet pleasure at the fact that Microsoft settled 
with the Department of Justice. Litigation should have ended long 
ago. As a user I feel that my rights have never been infringed upon 
my Microsoft.
    In fact, their products have made it easier for me to operate 
efficiently with computers, more so now than ever before. I realize 
their market dominance precludes competitors from gaining any edge. 
But, their products are far superior to any other vendors.
    I am glad to see that Microsoft has agreed on particular 
concessions with the US department of Justice, but I am not happy 
with nine states holding out. I support the settlement, and look 
forward to the end of this case.
    Sincerely,
    Tom Zukowski
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00028530

From: John P. Kopp

[[Page 28295]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Kopp
342 Wellington Rd
Mineola, N.Y. 11501
January 10,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    When the federal government decided to pursue Microsoft in an 
antitrust suit three years ago, the intention was to determine if 
Microsoft exercised unfair market advantage in the software 
industry. The result that the plaintiffs (including the government) 
in the suit did not consider was the harm to other businesses in the 
technology industry created by the lawsuit.
    Unlike other software companies, Microsoft has an open platform 
that allows many manufacturers of computer software and hardware to 
be profitable due in part to the enormous investment Microsoft 
placed in creating the Windows operating system. Being involved in 
the video industry, I do a great deal of work with computers. The 
truth is, creating the highly complex codes that are needed to 
support the programs used in business these days can only be done by 
a company that has vast economic resources and technical expertise. 
By harming Microsoft, the lawsuit is harming companies that are 
dependent on its software for their livelihoods.
    Thanks to the extremely low price of the Windows operating 
system, computers and technology have found the widespread use that 
benefits all of us. For this and many other reasons, I am in support 
of this settlement.
    Sincerely,
    John Kopp



MTC-00028531

From: Kuo, Benjamin P
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    I am writing to express my disapproval over the proposed 
Microsoft Settlement.
    I believe this deal is a sellout to Microsoft. Consumers get no 
real benefits and Microsoft goes unpunished for their antitrust 
behavior. We have no reason to spend millions of taxpayer dollars 
pursuing this case, only to hand out such lenient penalties when the 
facts are on the government's side. Microsoft is and continues to be 
a monopoly.
    I urge you to reconsider the terms of the deal so that real 
progress can be made to restore competition in the marketplace.
    Sincerely,
    Benjamin Kuo



MTC-00028532

From: Florence Fredrichs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:23pm
Subject: I hope the Department of Justice
considers well before punishing I hope
the Department of Justice considers well
before punishing innovative enterprises
in our country. Microsoft has improved
much of our systems of communication
and i stongly feel that the case against
their company is more or less moot.
There is always competition in any field
and the best systems will succeed.
    I urge your department to let market forces reward or punish 
public ventures and spare the court system for more serious 
injustices.
    Thank you for your attention, Florence A. Friedrichs-7045 HWY 
135
    Pilot Grove,MO



MTC-00028533

From: jdettre
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
Attached is a letter concerning the Microsoft Settlement.
John W. Dettre
3038 Harbour Drive
Palmyra, NJ 08065-;2206
(856) 829-;0704
[email protected]
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I am writing in support of Microsoft's antitrust settlement with 
your Department of Justice. I think it is very reasonable. You 
should do your utmost to have it approved by the Court.
    It is unfortunate that Microsoft's competitors had to resort to 
exploiting our legal system as their only way of staying in 
business. In the settlement Microsoft agrees 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). Microsoft will make available to its 
competitors, on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, any 
protocols implemented in Windows'' operating system products 
that are used to interoperate with any Microsoft server operating 
system. Microsoft will not to enter into any agreements obligating 
any third party to distribute or promote any Windows technology 
exclusively or in a fixed percentage.
    In addition to the above, it appears that some of our 
``REPRESENTATIVES--;?'' in Washington are being 
``Politically Correct'' and favor those companies that 
support them There are also'' State Officials'' trying to 
enhance their position and will do what they can to disrupt 
Microsoft. Microsoft has given its competitors the opportunity to 
stay afloat. American consumers have always benefited form 
Microsoft's innovations.
    Sincerely,
    John W. Dettre



MTC-00028534

From: Paul D. Shervey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    In my following of the Justice Departments antitrust action 
against Microsoft I am compelled to write this letter in of support 
of Microsoft and what I feel is an unjust prosecution of a company.
    First--;is bigness a crime? If it is you should take action 
against the Federal Government and several Sate Governments.
    Second--;is offering a software package at a lower price 
than any one else can produce a comparable product a crime?
    Third--;Microsoft has brought utility and time savings to 
small business and computer users that is unprecedented in its 
impact on our nations economy. Microsoft Software's contribution to 
productivity of individuals and business in the 17 years since they 
opened their doors has to be one of the major contributions of the 
20th Century.
    If our economy has produced the greatest standard of living in 
history it is because of the free enterprise system. This was made 
possible by the laws and the thinking of our Founding Fathers laid 
down in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Our Country cannot 
maintain it's world leadership in freedom and free enterprise with a 
twisting of justice such as this case against Microsoft.
    Yours truly,
    Paul D. Shervey, President
    Faber Shervey Advertising
    8101 Lea Road
    Bloomington, Minnesota 55438-;1259
    Phone 952-;944-;5111



MTC-00028535

From: James E. Willems
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Case
    Usdoj,
    When I retired I made microsoft stock the heart of our joint 
retirement because I believed that this company represents the 
future america where service rather than production will be our 
world wide contribution. The government through there failure to 
settle this case has and continues impact the lives of us retired 
citizens. Please settle this case so that our lives arenot impacted 
in such a negative way. Microsoft has done more to make life better 
for all american citizens, then any other company that I can recall. 
The settlement as I understand is fair and should be finalized.
    Thank you,
    James E Willems, Age 75



MTC-00028536

From: David Richard Larochelle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to inform you of my opposition to the proposed 
settlement in the Microsoft case. As a researcher and a member of 
the security community I am extremely dismayed by the previsions of 
the settlement

[[Page 28296]]

which allow Microsoft not to disclose details of their software 
which they deem to be security related.
    For over 20 years it has been a widely accepted in the security 
community that ``security through obscurity'' does not 
work. Keeping the details of software secret does not make it more 
secure. Time and again it has been shown that malicious users are 
still able to find and exploit security holes in software even if 
the details of the software are not disclosed.
    I am extremely distressed that these prevision of the settlement 
disregard the accepted views of the security community. They will do 
little or nothing to increase security and provide Microsoft with a 
giant loop hole to avoid releasing software.
    David Larochelle



MTC-00028537

From: Bloom, Larry
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 4:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    ``Microsoft and its critics both worked to ensure their 
views were reflected in the comments. Americans for Technology 
Leadership, made up of Microsoft and several others friendly to the 
software giant, offered letter writers extra chances to win a 
handheld computer.''
    The above quote is a perfect example of why Microsoft must be 
reigned in. Microsoft will always stoop to any level to be sure that 
their products remain the only platform offered to consumers...in 
this case, by trying to bribe letters of comment for their own 
support.
    Please add my name to the ranks of those who believe that 
Microsoft must be controlled by an order with more effective 
enforcement and with more strict controls of their anti-competitive 
practices.
    Larry Bloom
    Director, Internet Design & Development
    HealthPlanServices
    [email protected]
    (813) 289-;1000 x4904



MTC-00028538

From: Justin Meredith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wholeheartedly disagree with the pending settlement between 
the DOJ and Microsoft. I see the settlement as further stifling 
competition. Furthermore, it appears to give Microsoft little more 
than a ``slap-on-the-wrist'' and send them on their way.
    I understand this is not a democratic issue. I'm not casting a 
vote;
    I'm only making a public opinion known.
    Justin Meredith
    2189 W 480 N
    Provo, UT 84601



MTC-00028539

From: Leon H. Carrington
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:27pm
Subject: resend faxed comments
    I am resending my comments for your convenience as an 
attachment. Was concerned that I can not sign them because I am 
sending from computer and have no scanner to include my signature. 
Am advised it does not matter. Attachment is to allow you to double 
space my comments, or manage electronically for your convenience. 
Attachment is in form of MS Word97.
    Sincerely,
    Leon H. Carrington
    From Leon H. Carrington
    22022 Gloucester Court 3-;B
    Lexington Park, Md. 20653
January 28, 2002
To: Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW Suite 1200
Washington DC 20530
    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 or fully substitutes for the 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 1 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 comnponents 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 currrently 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 applications 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 
features provided by the underlying hardware manufacturers. It would 
further encourage competion between hardware

[[Page 28297]]

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%: 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 would allow it or the underlying 
hardware verticle 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 that``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, 2 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, 3 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 
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 Statement 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 
requirement ``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 fight 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 fight 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 herein, Microsoft should be broken 
into at least two separate pieces: operating systems and 
applications.
    Respectfully Submitted,
    Leon H. Carrington,
    STB Practitioner
    (301) 862-;1604

[[Page 28298]]



MTC-00028541

From: Ann smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:27pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    states sueing microsoft as well as aol using netscape to get 
money from microsoft thru the courts is wrong. microsoft is being 
bullied by the goverment and stockholders have lost money because of 
this court action. it also does not let microsoft give all the 
attention it needs to fight the hackers and make the internet safe 
for all users including aol.
    The reason we are so interested in Microsoft Programs is that 
children all over the world are benefiting by Microsoft 
products,games and all sorts of programs as an educational tool. I'm 
so pleased when I see my 4year old granddaughter open the computer 
and do what she wants to do. She spends hours doing games and 
playing her videos, instead of watching T.V all the time.
    We have eight babies we encourage to learn all they can by 
buying programs for them at Birthdays and just for fun.
    We the elderly have fun also and we invest money into the future 
of Microsoft and other companies for the future.



MTC-00028542

From: Ron
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:27pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement- further evidence
    I have further indication that Microsoft continues to exercise 
monopolistic behavior such that the only solution is to break it 
into separate companies.
    I recently purchased a subscription to MSDN (a service of 
Microsoft that includes their software on CD or DVD).
    I went to install Win/XP. They had not supplied me with a 
product code for XP, and such a code is required in order to be able 
to install the product I had paid for.
    It turns out that in order to get a product code, I must 
register an Email address with Microsoft[1]. Further, I must use 
Microsoft Passport[2] in order to get a product code. The product 
I'm installing has no relation to Email or Passport.
    [1] I should not need an Email address to install something that 
is not an Email application. Last time Microsoft got my Email 
address, it took me nearly a year plus a letter to the gripe line at 
Infoworld to get them to stop spamming me.
    [2] Microsoft Passport requires that:
    1. You trust them to hold the required information about you.
    2. You accept cookies, which has privacy implications
    3. You use an approved browser. Microsoft rejected the browser I 
tried to use. --;
    Ronald Tansky



MTC-00028543

From: Karl J. Smith
To: Microsoft 
ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/28/02 4:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The following is my comment about the proposed Microsoft 
Settlement under the Tunney Act:
    First, let me state that I agree completely with Dan Kegel's 
comments abot the issues at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
remedy2.html. He has done a great job summarizing the many problems 
with the proposed settlement. In particular, however, I feel that 
the public will be harmed most by the fact that the proposed 
settlement doesn't account for any potential Open-Source 
competition. It allows Microsoft to decide which entities it's 
required to share documentation with, and has too many exceptions 
for Microsoft to use as reasons for not documenting their protocols 
and API's. Given that Microsoft has a documented history of refusing 
to cooperate, this portion of the settlement is not very helpful at 
all in restoring competition, and interoperability of protocols and 
data is absolutely required for any real competition to exist.
    The settlement is not in the public interest, for the many many 
reasons listed above.
    Sincerely,
    Karl J. Smith
    12525 SW Foothill Dr.
    Portland, OR 97225
    [email protected]



MTC-00028544

From: Dean (038) Danielle Fulcer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am in favor of this settlement. Microsoft has already changed 
many of its business practices that were shown to be in violation of 
the antitrust laws. These antitrust laws were meant from the 
beggining to protect consumers, not simply allow competitors who 
refuse to innovate and meet customer needs stay in business. 
Microsoft has taken incredible risks by investing in technology 
R&D when many other businesses would rather just keep the status 
quo.
    It's time to move on. Accept this settlement. Protect innovation 
while monitoring Microsoft for compliance. Do not stifle Microsoft's 
sucees. THAT would hurt consumers, not Microsoft coming out with 
major new versions of their software that itegrate key features 
every couple of years. Could you imagine buying a computer from a 
manufacturer that was not allowed to integrate a CD-RW drive, or a 
DVD, or for that matter a laptop without a monitor? This is 
analagous to what Microsoft has done, integrate key user needs into 
a single product. Please do not force me as a cosumer to shop for 
each of my operating system needs individually. That would hurt me 
in terms of time and money.
    Sincerely,
    Dean Fulcer
    428 SW 347th ST
    Federal Way, WA 98023



MTC-00028545

From: Beverly Offutt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:28pm
Subject: USAGOffutt--;Beverly--;1007--;0122
5873 Warnke Road
Michigan City, IN 46360
January 24, 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 approval of the settlement reached 
between the Justice Department and Microsoft.
    As I understand the settlement, Microsoft has agreed to modify 
its Windows operating systems to allow for the use of non-Microsoft 
programs and services within Windows. The amount of additional 
consumer choice brought about by this concession could be very 
significant.
    In addition, Microsoft has agreed to eliminate many of its more 
restrictive covenants from its agreements with licensees and 
distributors. I believe that this agreement will also provide 
additional consumer choice after a period of time.
    I know that you will agree that you have more pressing problems 
on your agenda right now. Please take advantage of this opportunity, 
settle the case, and move on. Thank you for your attention.
    Sincerely,
    Beverly Offutt



MTC-00028546

From: JJ Gifford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    Attached are my comments re. United States et al. v. Microsoft, 
pursuant to the Tunney Act.
    I have attached two copies of the same document, one in 
Microsoft Word format; the other in Rich-Text Format. Either 
document should be readable on any modern PC using up-to-date 
software.
    Thanks in advance,
    JJ Gifford
    212 226 3462
Jonathan Gifford
117 Sullivan St., 5A
New York, NY 10012
[email protected]
January 28, 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
[email protected]
re. Deficiencies in Microsoft settlement.
    Pursuant to the Tunney Act, I am filing these comments on the 
proposed resolution of United States, et al. v. Microsoft.
    My Perspective, Experience, and Interest
    I believe this case is tremendously important. As personal 
computers and the Internet have become increasingly important to our 
everyday lives, so too has the landscape of the technology markets 
become increasingly important. Not only will the outcome of this 
case impact the fortunes of a host of technology companies, but it 
will also affect how I and millions of others communicate with our 
friends and family, what choices we have for online services such as 
digital photography, and of course how much we and businesses spend 
on technology infrastructure.
    Once the government decided not to seek a structural remedy, it 
necessarily embarked

[[Page 28299]]

on a course of regulation. Regulation only works when the conduct 
prohibitions truly restrain anti-competitive behavior, and create a 
genuine opportunity for innovators to enter the market and compete 
in it based on their merits. Unfortunately, the Proposed Final 
Judgement (PFJ) presented by the Department of Justice and several 
states fails on all counts.
    Its results will be only a mild, temporary modification to 
Microsoft's well-documented behavior, with no lasting or significant 
effect on competition. Microsoft will retain its monopoly and every 
incentive to maintain it through any means not specifically 
prohibited by the PFJ. Consumers will continue to be deprived of the 
innovations and other benefits of a truly competitive market, in 
part because innovators will be deprived of the opportunity and 
incentive to challenge Microsoft's monopoly as it expands and 
evolves. Most importantly, America's technology industry will 
stagnate, as ever fewer competitors see any value in entering 
markets dominated by Microsoft.
    While I believe that many if not most Americans will be affected 
by the disposition of this case, I have a particular interest in it 
as a long-time technology consumer, entrepreneur, and enthusiast. 
Since 1980, I have used personal computers nearly every day, first 
as a hobby, then for school, and later for my career in the 
technology industry. In the early 1990s, I managed a small but 
pioneering desktop publishing department for a large advertising 
agency. Later, I joined a groundbreaking multimedia company that 
produced CD-ROMs for both Macintosh and Windows-based computers.
    Most recently, I was a partner in a successful Internet 
development firm, which designs and produces web sites and other 
interactive media for corporate clients. Having sold my share of 
that business, I currently consult for other companies in the 
technology industry.
    Definitions Are Critical: the Devil Is in the Details
    1. Most provisions of the PFJ depend on the definition of 
``Microsoft Middleware.'' Accordingly, we should expect 
this term to be well-defined, with clear boundaries and 
unquestionable meaning. Unfortunately, the reality is that it is 
vaguely defined, in language that grants Microsoft itself much 
control over what software it, and therefore the PFJ, governs.
    1.1.
    Definition: According to the PFJ (PFJ VI.J), ``Microsoft 
Middleware'' is any software which:
    .* is distributed separately from the operating system,
    .* controls the user interface of the Microsoft Middleware,
    .* provides substantially similar functionality as a Microsoft 
Middleware Product, and
    . is trademarked.
    1.2.
    Definition gives Microsoft control. So Microsoft, which has long 
stated its goal of incorporating browsing and other middleware 
functions into its operating system products, can exclude code from 
the Microsoft Middleware definition simply by not distributing it 
separately from the operating system, or even just by not 
trademarking it. Microsoft therefore will have enormous latitude in 
determining which new operating system features will be governed by 
the PFJ.
    Clarity Is Essential to Compliance and Public Confidence.
    The PFJ consists largely of vague prohibitions hobbled by 
numerous qualifiers and exemptions.
    For instance:
    Limited replacement of Microsoft Middleware.
    2.1. The PFJ requires Microsoft to enable users and OEMs to 
specify that Non-Microsoft Middleware be used in place of Microsoft 
Middleware (PFJ, III.H.2). This is a welcome change because it had 
previously been difficult to replace Microsoft's Internet Explorer 
(IE) without facing ``considerable uncertainty and 
confusion'' when IE would nonetheless unexpectedly be invoked 
under certain circumstances (Findings, paragraph 171).
    2.1.1. Exemption for Microsoft servers. Unfortunately, Microsoft 
is exempt from this requirement when the Middleware Product would be 
invoked ``solely for use in interoperating with a server 
maintained by Microsoft'' (PFJ III.H). This may exempt 
Microsoft's current move into network services (''.NET'') 
from the judgement, inasmuch as such services communicate with 
Microsoft-owned servers. Microsoft considers .NET to be the next 
phase of the Internet, at last offering `real'' 
applications and services. The first .NET service, Microsoft 
Passport, aims at becoming a cornerstone of Internet shopping and 
authentication transactions, and stores its data exclusively on 
Microsoft-owned servers.
    2.1.2. Exemption for proprietary technologies. Another exemption 
allows Microsoft to launch its own middleware when the Non-Microsoft 
Middleware ``fails to implement a reasonable technical 
requirement'' (PFJ III H 3). Microsoft will be able to 
capitalize on this loophole simply by emphasizing proprietary 
technologies not supported by Non- Microsoft Middleware. To the 
extent that Microsoft can implement features using proprietary 
technologies, it will better be able to exclude Non-Microsoft 
Middleware. A truly pro-competitive PFJ would encourage Microsoft to 
use open industry standards.
    OEM Distribution Channel Opened, But For Whom?
    2.2. The PFJ requires Microsoft to allow OEMs to customize the 
user's desktop by installing icons for Non-Microsoft 
Middleware and other products (PFJ, III.C.1). This is important to 
the PFJ because Microsoft has in the past excluded Netscape and 
other competitors from the valuable OEM distribution channel, often 
by contractually limiting an OEM's ability to customize the desktop. 
In addition, Microsoft has used its control over the valuable 
desktop real-estate as an incentive to get IAPs such as AOL to 
support Microsoft Middleware instead of competing products.
    2.2.1. OEMs lack incentive. Unfortunately, because Microsoft's 
Internet Explorer is now the market leader, there is today little 
consumer demand for alternatives to Microsoft Middleware. This makes 
it unlikely that an OEM would see much gain, if any, in installing 
Non-Microsoft Middleware. Such distribution may benefit the 
middleware developers, but would not greatly benefit the OEM.
    2.2.2. Customizations will be short-lived. This prohibition 
remains in effect only for a 14-day window starting after the end 
user first turns on his or her PC. Thereafter, Microsoft is free to 
re-arrange the desktop as it sees fit, including automatic removal 
of any non-Microsoft icons, e.g. by operating system features such 
as the ``Clean Desktop Wizard'' built-in to Windows XP 
(PFJ, III.H.3). So, any Non-Microsoft Middleware developers who do 
manage to secure OEM distribution could well see their products 
wiped off the desktop after a short two weeks.
    2.2.3. Likely results. These limitations beg the question: will 
any OEMs risk irritating Microsoft for such minor benefits? If they 
do, will the results truly be increased competition in the 
middleware market?
    General Rule on Sharing APIs.
    2.3. The PFJ requires Microsoft to share APIs used by Microsoft 
Middleware with ISVs, et al. (PFJ III.D). In its Findings of Fact, 
the District Court found that Microsoft had repeatedly withheld such 
information from ISVs, or used its disclosure as an incentive for 
`friendlier'' behavior, in an effort to preserve the 
applications barrier to entry (Findings, paragraph 84, 90, 91). 
Because ISVs depend on such information to develop software for a 
given platform, withholding APIs can limit or destroy an ISV's 
ability to create competitive products. Therefore full API 
disclosure should be considered a basic condition for any kind of 
effective competition.
    2.3.1. Only APIs necessary to mimic Microsoft's products will be 
disclosed. Unfortunately, the PFJ requires Microsoft to share only 
those operating system APIs used by Microsoft Middleware. This is a 
limited set of APIs, of use only to those ISVs who want to develop 
middleware products similar to Microsoft's. It does little to help 
ISVs offer features or innovations not already offered by 
Microsoft's products. Since ISVs typically must provide innovations 
to gain market share against an entrenched market leader, this 
requirement is unlikely to promote competition in the middleware 
market.
    2.3.2. Many APIs may be withheld on dubious 
`security'' grounds. The PFJ allows Microsoft to exclude 
any APIs the disclosure of which ``would compromise the 
security of a particular installation or group of installations of 
anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital rights 
management, encryption or authentication systems'' (PFJ III.I. 
1 ).
    . This is a surprising exemption because few security 
professionals believe API disclosure could weaken any well-designed 
security system. Indeed, the complete source code (a level of 
disclosure far greater than simple APIs) is publicly available for 
several operating systems and security-related products that are 
widely considered to be more secure than Windows (e.g. the Linux 
operating system).
    . Yet the inclusion of this exemption implies that there in fact 
are such APIs

[[Page 28300]]

whose disclosure could compromise security, and thereby opens the 
door for Microsoft to make claims about which ones they are. There 
is no basis for the Competitive Impact Statement's 
(``CIS'') optimism that security-related exemptions will 
be limited to ``keys and tokens'' (CIS, IV.B.5) of 
particular installations. Nothing in the PFJ's language so limits 
the exemptable APIs, and such entities aren't generally visible at 
the API level, anyhow.
    . With Microsoft's current push into network services (under the 
.NET moniker), we can expect privacy and security features to be 
suffused throughout the code, increasing the number of APIs 
Microsoft will try to exempt from disclosure. Indeed, Microsoft has 
just this month announced that privacy and security will henceforth 
be its main priorities. 1
    1 Associated Press, ``Microsoft Announces Strategy 
Shift'', D. Ian Hopper and Ted Bridis, January 17, 2002.
    Inadequate Enforcement
    3. The task of detecting whether Microsoft has violated these 
and other provisions falls to a three- person ``Technical 
Compliance'' committee (the ``TC''). This committee 
will have access to the source code and tools used to create 
Microsoft's products, as well as access to the relevant Microsoft 
staff (PFJ IV.B.8). In theory, the TC's oversight will prevent 
Microsoft from using technical strategies to camouflage non-
compliance, for instance by wrongly claiming that some important API 
should not be disclosed for security reasons. While such oversight 
may in fact be helpful, the TC is an inadequate, inefficient and 
non-transparent attempt to ensure enforcement of a Judgement that 
otherwise relies on voluntary compliance and enforces few penalties 
for transgressions.
    3.1. Severe employment restrictions threaten the TC's 
performance. The PFJ includes employment restrictions which will 
dramatically narrow the pool of TC candidates--;first, to those 
experts not currently working for Microsoft or a competitor, and 
then to those remaining candidates willing to forego any such 
employment for two years after serving on the TC. In so doing, it 
excludes nearly all of those experts in operating systems design and 
programming whom the TC most needs, since it will be very difficult 
to find any such experts not currently working for, and with no 
intention of working for, Microsoft or a competitor. As a 
professional in this field, I cannot imagine why a highly competent 
independent minded computer scientist would wish to serve on the TC 
under these circumstances.
    3.2- The TC will be buried under a mountain of technical data. 
Even if well staffed, the committee will have all enormously 
difficult task from a technical standpoint. Inasmuch as deciphering 
computer source code can be difficult even for the code's author, 
much less a new reader, and inasmuch as Windows XP alone consists of 
some 45 million lines of code 2, this committee will have an 
enormously difficult task. Even with a large support staff, it is 
hard to imagine this committee effectively analyzing Microsoft's 
source code and fully investigating allegations of non-compliance.
    3.3. The TC cannot ensure timely remedies. Further, because the 
committee is prohibited from public comment (PFJ, IV.B.10), it will 
be unable to confirm any ISV's suspicions about Microsoft's 
compliance, nor could it force a timely remedy. Its only recourse 
will instead be to notify Microsoft and the Plaintiffs and to 
suggest a possible remedy. Therefore, an ISV suspecting Microsoft of 
non-compliance will not receive an immediate remedy, but must 
instead rely on a bureaucracy whose natural tendency will be not to 
pursue minor infractions. While such infractions may indeed be minor 
in the scope of the overall judgement, they would assuredly be of 
great importance to the ISV.
    3.4. The TC's findings may not be presented to the Court or the 
public. Under the PFJ, the TC may not testify in any matter relating 
to the Final Judgement, nor may its work product and recommendations 
be submitted to the Court (PFJ, IV.D.4.d). Similarly, the TC is 
prohibited from public comment (PFJ, IV.B.10). Thus, even if the 
TC's exclusive access to source code should produce evidence of 
deception and non-compliance by Microsoft, this evidence will not be 
presented to the Court. 2 BusinessWeek, ``Windows XP: a 
Firewall for All'', Alex Salkever, June 12, 2001.
    . In theory, the TC will report to the Plaintiffs, who may in 
turn report such non- compliance to the Court, and produce evidence 
of it via other means. This may well happen in the case of massive 
or severe non-compliance. However, what happens to the small ISV who 
suspects Microsoft of non-compliance, e.g. by not disclosing some 
necessary API? Such an injured party may report its concerns to the 
TC, and then hope that the TC is able to verify its claims, and 
further is able to convince the Plaintiffs to go to court on their 
behalf. During this bureaucratic pursuit, the ISV's business may 
suffer irreparable harm, or even vanish altogether (as has very 
nearly happened to Netscape). Were such ISVs to have access to 
Microsoft's source code, perhaps in a secure facility, they could 
investigate such concerns themselves, directly and immediately. 
Indeed, API disclosure would not be an issue in the first place.
    . The point here is that the nature of the TC is as the first 
step in a bureaucracy whose natural instinct will be to pursue only 
the most serious transgressions. In the context of a rapidly 
changing technology industry, this is a serious weakness in the PFJ.
    3.5. PFJ places enormous weight on third TC member. The PFJ 
proposes that the Plaintiffs appoint one member of the TC, Microsoft 
appoint a second, and then these two members themselves choose a 
third (PFJ IV.B.3). This structure places enormous responsibility on 
the third member, who can be expected to decide any disagreement 
between Microsoft's representative and the Plaintiffs'', 
especially in the context of the Voluntary Dispute Resolution 
process in IV.D. It is unclear whether the TC reports to the 
Plaintiffs only as a single unit, or whether a dissenter's view also 
gets submitted to the Plaintiffs. A better structure would at the 
very least make it crystal clear that any single member of the TC 
may report, to the Plaintiffs.
    Also, creating such a fulcrum position in the TC makes this 
third seat much less attractive and harder to fill, and injects an 
element of politics into the TC that will distract from its 
technical mission and smooth functioning. Because the TC is not a 
decisional body, but simply a means to keep a watchful eye on 
Microsoft's compliance, it is unclear why Microsoft should have 
representation here at all. All of the TC's members should be 
appointed by the Plaintiffs, perhaps with the DOJ appointing one 
member, the States appointing a second member, and the Plaintiffs 
collectively appointing the third.
    3.6. Catch-22. Given the enormity of the TC's tasks, the limits 
on its powers and enforcement abilities, and the severe employment 
restrictions surrounding service in the TC (IV.B.2), it is clear 
that any candidate for the TC willing to accept the job is almost 
certainly too inexperienced to be legitimately qualified for it. In 
Today's Market, More is Needed.
    4. In perhaps its broadest weakness, the PFJ fails to recognize 
that the circumstances of the original case were unique, and that 
circumstances today are very different. The Internet's rapid public 
acceptance around 1994-;1995 took many established computer-
industry firms by surprise, and radically changed the personal 
computer market. The basic reasons users wanted to own personal 
computers changed dramatically within less than two years. Two 
companies in particular, Netscape and Sun Microsystems, were able to 
aggressively exploit the new technologies and to take advantage of 
Microsoft's slow response to the burgeoning consumer demand. As a 
result, they were able to present a serious threat to the 
applications barrier to entry that has long protected Microsoft's 
monopoly in Intel-compatible operating systems.
    4.1. No longer any consumer demand for non-Microsoft Middleware. 
But that window of opportunity is long closed. The Internet is an 
established part of the personal computer market. Microsoft's 
Internet Explorer is the dominant browser. There no longer is any 
great consumer demand for alternative browsers. Netscape no longer 
exists as an independent company, and development of the Netscape 
browser occurs at a fraction of its former pace. Even the CIS 
acknowledges that Microsoft has ``perhaps extinguished 
altogether the process by which these two middleware technologies 
[Java and the Netscape browser] could have facilitated the 
introduction of competition into the market for Intel-compatible 
personal computer operating systems'' (CIS, III.B.3).
    4.2. Cannot resuscitate existing middleware competitors. Nothing 
in the PFJ can or will restore these competitors to their former 
strength. There is no way to rekindle the massive consumer demand, 
then left unserviced by Microsoft, that gave these companies their 
initial momentum.
    4.3. Hoping for another thousand-year flood. Still, the CIS 
claims the PFJ will ``restore the competitive threat that 
middleware products posed prior to Microsoft's unlawful 
undertakings'' (CIS, II). Given that Microsoft now dominates 
the browser market and retains its operating

[[Page 28301]]

systems monopoly, and given that the PFJ allows Microsoft to support 
its browser market share by tying the browser to the operating 
system, this claim seems to rest on the optimistic hope that some 
new disruptive technology will appear, will be ignored by Microsoft, 
and will create massive consumer demand for some non-Microsoft 
Middleware. Without such an event, the PFJ merely establishes rules 
for a game that has no players.
    Unconditional Surrender
    5. Finally, in a bizarre and extreme limitation, the PFJ will 
expire in only five years--;regardless of whether or not 
Microsoft retains its operating systems monopoly (PFJ, V.A). The DOJ 
must believe that not only is the PFJ an effective remedy, but that 
it will be so effective that Microsoft will be reduced to a shadow 
of its former self and must be unshackled in just five years (seven, 
if the Plaintiffs seek and receive the maximum extension permitted 
by the PFJ). Unfortunately, this clause is so careless that it will 
release Microsoft no matter the circumstances--;that is, even if 
Microsoft retains or even strengthens its monopoly power. The 
message that the PFJ sends is ``we'll try this for five years, 
and then we're giving up.'' Any judgement should remain in 
effect until the Court finds that Microsoft no longer holds a 
monopoly in Intel-compatible operating systems. It makes little 
sense to release Microsoft until competition has re-entered the 
market and Microsoft may no longer commit the illegal acts described 
by the Court's Findings of Fact.
    Alternatives
    This PFJ illustrates the difficulty in devising effective 
conduct remedies for complex software cases such as this, especially 
where the defendant retains its monopoly power and the incentive to 
expand and maintain it by any method not prohibited by the PFJ. 
Vague technical definitions and even apparently narrow exemptions 
can be exploited by the monopolist to maintain its ill-gotten gains. 
It would be vastly preferable to create the proper structural 
conditions for competition by decoupling parts of the monopolist 
enterprise. Without a structural remedy, it is imperative that the 
definitions and prohibitions in the Final Judgement be as clear and 
comprehensive as possible, so as to fully restrict the anti-
competitive behavior that has been denying consumers choice, 
innovation and fair market pricing. There are a number of specific 
changes that ought to be made to the PFJ:
    . Any judgement should remain in effect until Microsoft no 
longer holds a monopoly in Intel- compatible operating systems. 
Starting in 5 years, the Court should annually review
    Microsoft's position in the Intel-compatible operating systems 
market. Should it find that Microsoft no longer exercises monopoly 
power in that market, and therefore cannot commit the illegal acts 
described in the Court's Findings of Fact, it could release 
Microsoft from the terms of the judgement.
    .* The TC should be appointed entirely by the Plaintiffs, 
perhaps with the DOJ appointing one member, the States appointing a 
second member, and the Plaintiffs collectively appointing the third.
    .* Definitions such as that of ``Microsoft 
Middleware'' should be tightened considerably, and the PFJ 
reworked to minimize its reliance on such narrow categories.
    . Microsoft should be required to make the full source-code for 
its Intel-compatible operating systems available for viewing by ISVs 
et al.. This will allow ISVs to better develop competitive products, 
and will allow the ISVs themselves to monitor Microsoft's compliance 
with the judgement's other technical requirements, instead of 
relying on an inefficient, overworked TC.
    .* If the Court decides against requiring source-code sharing, 
it should at a minimum require the disclosure of all operating 
system APIs used by any Microsoft products (i.e. not just those APIs 
used by Microsoft Middleware). A blanket disclosure requirement such 
as this will close those existing loopholes whereby Microsoft might 
withhold critical information from ISVs whose products threaten its 
operating system monopoly.
    .* Exemptions permitting various proscribed behaviors under 
certain circumstances should, as a whole, be stricken.
    .* Finally, the judgment should include real consequences for 
non-compliance, such as further conduct prohibitions, financial 
penalties, or further disclosure requirements. The PFJ currently 
provides only a possible Court-imposed two-year extension of its 
rather toothless provisions.
    Conclusion I hope that the PFJ is modified by the DOJ or the 
Court, and that what seems to be a great opportunity for antitrust 
law to make a difference for tomorrow's entrepreneurs and consumers 
is not lost in a fog of complexity. The technology may be complex 
and changing, but the underlying competitive issues are fundamental. 
I take both comfort and concern from the fact that I am clearly not 
alone in expressing these concerns. As the Financial Times 
editorialized:
    ...It would be wrong for the states, or the judge, to reject 
this settlement merely because it is not sufficiently punitive. The 
test is whether the proposal provides enough protection for the 
public and for Microsoft's competitors. As it stands, it does not 
meet this test. Though a continued trial would be expensive and 
distracting, it would be better than an unsatisfactory settlement. 
This proposal should be rejected..
    (Financial Times, ``Micro-too-soft'', November 5, 
2001)
    I believe that the PFJ, if accepted by the Court in its current 
form, will lead to clear and irreparable harm to consumers and to 
the United States'' technology industry. So pervasive has 
technology become that the technology industry is an obviously 
critical component of the American economy.
    Even BusinessWeek, itself no anti-capitalist Microsoft critic, 
recognized the broad implications of the resolution of this case:
    ... [T]he Justice Dept.'s weak censure of Microsoft for its 
serious monopolistic practices could cost the U.S. mightily in the 
years ahead. The great strengths of the American economy are its 
openness, its competitiveness, and its innovativeness. Monopoly is 
the enemy of all three.
    (BusinessWeek, ``Slapping Microsoft's Wrist'', 
November 19, 200!) Based on my experience, I do not find the PFJ to 
be in the ``public interest'', which is the standard that 
the DOJ and the Court are subject to under the Tunney Act.
    Respectfully submitted,
    Jonathan Gifford
    January 28, 2002



MTC-00028547

From: Lorenzo Thurman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:27pm
Subject: Microsoft anit-trust settlement
    I feel the settlement does not punish Microsoft for their wrong 
doings. Note that I did not say ``punish enough'', because 
I do not feel they are being punished at all. The agreement calls 
for oversight, not puninishment, and a large donation to schools. 
Neither of these will force Microsoft into changing its behaviour 
nor will they help create a more competitve environment. I, as a 
software developer, feel that any business I start would be 
threatened if I develop technology like Java that threatens their 
Monopoly.
    I've heard some of Secretary Ashcroft's comments about the 
settlement and at least part of his reasoning is that it would be 
good for the economy. In the short term, this may be true, but the 
downturn in the economy and the war on terrorism will pass, and we 
will be left with a very non-competitive environment with one 
company dominating both the operating system and the applications 
area. This potentially has global ramifications. As you may be 
aware, some European countries and China are looking elsewhere for 
their technology. They are concerned about their own security and 
having only one company to provide the bulk of their productivity, 
security etc. This will only serve to create markets outside of the 
US. The Justice Department's current settlement may solve short term 
problems, but will only serve to isolate the American software 
vendors, unless you act now to reduce and/or restrict the Microsoft 
monopoly.
    Thank you



MTC-00028548

From: Gordon Fox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As an individual and user of the Microsoft Operating System and 
bundled software I have appreciated the ease of having it all in one 
package. I believe that most individual consumers would agree. The 
government broke up Ma Bell and now there are many larger 
businesses. All it did was to make prices rise. A business should be 
allowed to produce their product without governmental restraint 
unless it in some way will do physical harm to a person.
    To those of us who are retired and hold stock in these companies 
such as Microsoft, the ongoing dispute over who is right has only 
served to hurt the stockholders. Let's get this suit over with once 
and for all and let

[[Page 28302]]

Microsoft get back to doing what they do best ? innovate!
    Thank you for your time,
    Gordon Fox



MTC-00028549

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The U.S. government, via the USAF, trained me to use and repair 
computers over 30 years ago. One of the first things I learned was 
that there are two kinds of software: operating system software and 
application software.
    The operating system software, such as Windows, controls how the 
computer functions, whether it be one with an Intel Pentium or 
another manufacturer's CPU chip. Application software consists of 
programs that use the computer to perform tasks, such as word 
processing, money management, or browsing the internet. By Microsoft 
controlling the operating system market for PCs, they have unfairly 
competed in the marketplace for years.
    By allowing Microsoft to continue to modify its operating system 
and add application software to it, you are allowing Microsoft to 
retain their monopoly and unfair advantage.
    Microsoft will continue to stifle competition by using its 
unfair advantage. Consider that Netscape, who developed the network 
browser, has had to practically give its software away. In 2-;3 
years, why will anyone want to buy RealPlayer software when 
Microsoft will have imbedded their media player software in the 
operating system?
    The only way to settle this issue fairly for all concerned is to 
split Microsoft into two companies. By requiring Microsoft to form a 
company that produces only operating systems, you will not only make 
the marketplace more fair for all application software companies, 
you will force Microsoft to make the best operating system they can.
    And, yes, the world needs a better operating system, not just 
the operating system Microsoft allows consumers to buy. I want an 
operating system that will efficiently use the software I want to 
install, not an operating system that is loaded with applications I 
might not want. By requiring Microsoft to form a company that 
produces only application software, you will place Microsoft into a 
position where the quality of their software determines whether they 
succeed, not because they can use their operating system to an 
unfair advantage. Splitting Microsoft into two companies would give 
application software companies a fair chance to succeed. Real and 
fair competition will return and innovation will drive the market.
    In the last 20 years, Microsoft has earned billions of dollars 
in profits, often at the expense of other companies. Consider 
Netscape who has had to give away their product. Consider Novell who 
had the best networking software available, but fell because 
Microsoft put networking software in their NT operating system. 
There are dozens, if not hundreds, more.
    The settlement that has been negotiated is laughable. It does 
not change anything. Microsoft will continue with their current way 
of doing business. And innovation and competition will continue to 
be stifled.
    Respectfully,
    Larry Lininger
    3130 Hancock Place
    Fremont, California



MTC-00028550

From: Brian Showalter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a United States citizen and experienced computer professional 
who has at times been compelled to work with Microsoft products,I 
would like to express my opposition to the settlement that has been 
proposed for the USDOJ's antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft. I feel 
that the terms of the settlement as currently specified are weighted 
far too heavily in favor of Microsoft, and that they will do nothing 
to prevent Microsoft from continuing abuse its monopoly position to 
stifle competition and lock customers into its products. The terms 
also significantly underestimate the lengths to which Microsoft has 
shown it swilling to go to root out loopholes in any agreements it 
enters into and exploit them in such a way that any intended 
restrictions on its behavior are effectively neutralized. I also 
feel that the terms will do literally nothing to ease the market 
barrier to entry for new products, particularly open-source products 
such as the Linux operating system, which may happen directly 
compete with Microsoft's offerings.
    There are a number of problems with the settlement which other 
shave outlined and on which I will not go into further 
details.However, I am dismayed by the extent to which the proposed 
settlement focuses almost completely on attempting to restrict 
Microsoft's behavior on the Windows desktop and middleware 
platforms, to the virtual exclusion of server platforms and other 
operating system products that are offered or soon to be offered 
Microsoft. In particular, the name ``Windows'' is 
mentioned 56times in the document, yet no mention is made of the 
embedded operating system market or of Microsoft's explicitly stated 
intention to replace the Windows desktop and server platform with 
the .NET initiative. Furthermore, the definitions of 
``operating system,'' ``personal computer,'' 
``Microsoft Platform Software,'' and``Windows 
Operating System Product'' refer entirely to desktop operating 
systems intended for use by a single user at a time.
    This loophole would have the effect of rendering Section III.A 
moot in its entirety should Microsoft attempt to retaliate against 
an OEM that is attempting to market a competing Server Platform on 
its products. Additionally, the proposed settlement does nothing to 
preclude Microsoft from dropping the Windows Brand name altogether 
and continuing their customer lock-in,competition-stifling and 
monopoly-extending behavior on a similar but differently named 
platform.
    Dan Kegel has done an excellent analysis which may be found 
online at (http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html). Mr.Kegel's 
site also contains links to several other very compelling analyses. 
Due to the flaws which I and others have pointed out,the settlement 
as it is currently written does not serve the public interest and 
should not be accepted without considerable revisions to ensure that 
the market is not tilted unfairly inMicrosoft's favor.
    Thank you for your time and for considering my point of view.
    Sincerely,
    Brian Showalter, Programmer/Analyst
    14713 W. 149th Court
    Olathe, KS 66062



MTC-00028551

From: Dave Janne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:31pm
Subject: Microsoft case
    Gentlemen- I'll make this short. It's time to settle this case. 
I think the settlement is more than fair, and any more delay in this 
is ongoing to hurt the economy more than it already has.
    Thank you
    L. David Janne- Pres.
    Steuben Electronics Inc.
    CC:[email protected]@
inetgw



MTC-00028552

From: Larry Boler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough is enough. Let's end the legal assaults on Microsoft.
    Microsoft has done more for the consumer than anybody else in 
the industry.
    Without Microsoft's excellent leadership and ongoing product 
improvements we would not be where we are today. Are we about to go 
back in time?
    Let the Free Enterprise System function the way it should and 
give Microsoft a chance to once again put 100% of it's efforts to 
making better products for the benefit of consumers.
    Larry Boler



MTC-00028553

From: John Jackson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
13223 46th Place W
Mukilteo, WA 98275
January 28, 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 
settlement that was reached in November between Microsoft and the 
government. I support this settlement and believe it is a fair and 
sufficient agreement to end the three-year antitrust dispute.
    This settlement contains provisions that will foster 
competition. Microsoft has agreed to share more information with 
other companies and is willing to follow procedures to make it 
easier for companies to compete. Under this agreement, Microsoft 
must design future versions of Windows to make it easier to install 
non-Microsoft

[[Page 28303]]

software. Microsoft has also agreed to license its Windows operating 
system products to the 20 largest computer makers on identical terms 
and conditions, including price. Microsoft will be monitored for 
compliance by a technical committee established by order of the 
settlement.
    This settlement will serve in the best public interest. 
Microsoft has contributed so much to our society that stifling this 
company will only serve to negatively impact the public. Please 
support this settlement. Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    John Jackson



MTC-00028554

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Attached please find comments by Palm, Inc. to the Revised 
Proposed Final Judgment in United States v. Microsoft Corporation, 
No. 98-;1232, State of New York, et al. v. Microsoft 
Corporation, No. 98-;1233, submitted pursuant to the Tunney 
Act, 15 U.S.C. 16.
    The attached is a .pdf file. We are also delivering hardcopies 
for your convenience.
    Please contact Craig Waldman at (212) 878 8458 with any 
questions or comments.
    <>
    For further information about Clifford Chance please see our 
website at http://www.cliffordchance.com or refer to any Clifford 
Chance office.



MTC-00028556

From: Henry Keultjes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
Re.: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    In response to the request for comments in USDOJ vs Microsoft in 
accordance with the Tunney Act I ask that such settlement be 
rejected. Having read the Revised Proposed Final Judgment between 
USDOJ and Microsoft, and having read the alternate proposed 
settlement by the nine states and DC, and having understood that the 
purpose of the Tunney Act to solicit feedback from US citizens 
affected by the outcome of a final judgment is to make sure that any 
such final judgment is in the best interest of the consumer, let me 
start by asking three questions:
    1. Now that Microsoft has been at the center of antitrust 
controversy forever, starting when Novell sued Microsoft culminating 
in a consent decree in 1994, is it not in the best interest of the 
consumer and our country as a whole to find a solution that will 
keep Microsoft out of the courts, at least for a while?
    2. Can the USDOJ vs Microsoft settlement proposal be in the best 
interest of the consumer if the agreement cannot be clearly 
understood even by the fairly educated person with a fairly good 
understanding of law that I am?
    3. Can the USDOJ vs Microsoft settlement proposal be in the best 
interest of the consumer if the agreement ignores that, because 
Microsoft's marginal cost is effectively zero, remedies, that might 
have been effective for a predatory competitor that *does* have real 
marginal costs, are totally ineffective here?
    What I, as the president of a company and as a consumer seek is 
simply an environment in which I can buy at a fair price what has 
become as ubiquitous a product as typewriters once were. In this 
case, however, this ubiquitous product is without the traditional 
competitive market place price pressures that go with ubiquitous 
products. Therefore prices for those Microsoft products that have 
replaced our typewriters are about four times higher then a 
competitive market would allow.
    The solution, the remedy, that USDOJ and Microsoft offer to 
solve the issue of Microsoft having been found guilty of anti-trust 
violations gives me very little comfort, if any, that such a 
competitively priced market will develop as a result of that 
agreement. As a matter of fact, if the agreement is allowed to 
become final, Microsoft will be emboldened to eliminate some of the 
loopholes that have allowed sophisticated buyers to avoid the so-
called Microsoft tax, the fact that the consumer pays for Microsoft 
products when s(he) buys a PC, whether s(he) needs those Microsoft 
products or not.
    On the other hand, the alternative settlement agreement proposed 
by the nine states and DC appears to offer a solution that *does* 
create a competitive environment where it now counts most, the 
desktop.
    Rather than addressing the various aspects of the USDOJ vs 
Microsoft proposal further, I will just address one issue, the 
clause in the alternate proposal that Microsoft establish three 
competitors for its MS-Office product through an auctioning process.
    The real sticky problem in trying to find a good solution to 
*this* anti-trust case lies in the fact that, although an individual 
or a company may want to switch to a competitor's OS, the huge 
investment in training and learning MS-Office products, such as MS-
Word and and MS-Excel, effectively discourages or even prevents such 
a switch.
    If one draws an analogy between the oft cited Standard Oil anti-
trust case, Microsoft has managed to bring about a situation where 
90% (including Apple's 5%) of the desktop software can only run on 
MS-Windows gasoline. Forcing Microsoft to sell off gas stations 
under those circumstances is obviously not a remedy. However, by 
forcing Microsoft to auction off three copies of MS-Office, complete 
with formulas and technical assistance for ten years, competitors 
can develop desktops that people already know and like but which 
desktops run on the gasoline of those competitors.
    Forcing Microsoft to just share the formula for the gas is an 
inadequate remedy, not only because, in the eyes of its competitors 
and a significant segment of the hightech industry, the quality of 
Microsoft gas is not very good, but also because of the time delay 
to build a refinery capable of producing that special gasoline.
    The solution that the nine states and DC are proposing is 
therefore an analogy to a Standard Oil case that is even more 
threatening to the consumer because, in this case, Microsoft also 
owns the factory that makes the special cars that more than 90% of 
the people are using now and which cars only run on Microsoft's own 
special gasoline. Forcing Microsoft to become the non-exclusive 
manufacturer of those proprietary MS-Office cars is therefore a 
brilliant remedy on the part of the nine states and DC as well as a 
meaningful punishment for Microsoft because it is neither a cash 
punishment not a punishment that will hobble the company.
    Competition for the dollars that consumers will spend to buy MS-
Office is not only a desirable end to this anti-trust case, by 
having an MS-Office version that effective runs on OSes like Linux 
and Unix, this solution will also lead to a more lasting end to this 
energy sapping Microsoft antitrust hassle. By punishing Microsoft 
fairly for its proven illegal behavior, the government in effect 
discourages other illegal behavior, such as cracking, by large 
groups of people who feel justified to take the law into their own 
hands if their government fails to afford its consumers protection 
from a monopolist under the law.
    Unless our government punishes Microsoft fairly for its illegal 
behavior, our government in effect creates an atmosphere in which 
lawlessness can blossom.
    Restated in simple terms, it is my belief that it is in the best 
interest of the consumers and our country that the court reject the 
proposed USDOJ vs Microsoft final judgment and instead adopt the 
remedies in the proposed final judgment of the nine states and DC as 
the final judgment.
    Sincerely,
    Henry B. Keultjes
    President
    Microdyne Company
    POB 1056
    Mansfield OH 44901-;1056
    Voice 419-;525-;1111
    HBK/s 27 January 2002



MTC-00028557

From: Bruce Morgan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I fully support the proposed settlement between Microsoft and 
the DOJ. Despite months of testimony and years of legal wrangling, 
no one has ever given any significant evidence of any consumer harm 
as a result of Microsoft's actions and behaviors.
    Microsoft's Windows operating system including the Internet 
Explorer browser is far and away the most user friendly, functional, 
and highest value operating system available. By building the 
browser functionality into the operating system (both as a user-
level feature like IE and as the MSHTML components for ISVs to use), 
Microsoft has provided a level of functionality far beyond anything 
any other vendor has delivered.
    I think settling this case is the best way for the software 
industry to move forward,

[[Page 28304]]

competing in the market instead of in the courts.
    Sincerely,
    Bruce Morgan
    Bellevue, WA



MTC-00028559

From: Fred Rone
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ:
    Please impose penalties on Microsoft that will encourage new 
competition in operating systems. The current de facto monopoly 
results in the price gouging that is apparent in Microsoft's 
extremely high profit margins.
    Sincerely yours,
    Fred Rone
    [email protected]



MTC-00028560

From: Bob Ray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I can't believe that the government's response to Microsoft's 
criminal behavior is a mere slap on the wrist. Not only will 
Microsoft continue to engage in anti-competitive and probably 
illegal behavior but other large companies will be encouraged to do 
so as well.
    Bob Ray



MTC-00028561

From: Chris Waterson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    One rememdy that I would find particularly satisfactory would be 
for Microsoft to have to ship a copy of Netscape's product with 
every copy of their operating system. :-)
    Chris Waterson
    437 Hoffman Ave.
    San Francisco, CA 94114
    415-;642-;3522
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00028562

From: Robert Randall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:36pm
Subject'' Microsoft Settlement
    Attached, in WordPerfect format are a cover letter and comments 
regarding whether the Microsoft settlement is in the public 
interest. Let me know if you have difficulty opening the attached 
WordPerfect files.
    Robert L. Randall
    RainForest ReGeneration
    1727 Massachusetts Ave NW
    Washington, DC 20036
    Tel: (202) 205-;3366
    Fax: (202) 483-;5175
RAINFOREST REGENERATION
THE RAINFOREST REGENERATION INSTITUTE
?27 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE NW WASHINGTON, DC 20036
26 January 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Accompanying are public comments regarding the proposed 
Microsoft settlement submitted for consideration pursuant to the 
Tunney Act proceedings before the District Court for the District of 
Columbia.
    I am not a lawyer, computer professional, or Microsoft 
competitor. I use personal computers to perform business 
``office'' functions and am concerned by how unwieldy and 
unreliable Windows has become as new ``features'' I do not 
want or use are incorporated. I also use Linux and find it better 
than Windows for my needs. However, few of the specialized 
applications programs I need for my work (in addition to general 
purpose ``office'' applications) are available for that 
platform without custom programming or adaptation so using Windows 
is a practical necessity. Microsoft products are priced considerably 
higher than their functional equivalents by other publishers, a 
phenomenon I attribute to Microsoft's monopoly pricing power that 
the instant Tunney Act proceedings are intended to curb in the 
public interest while not losing the benefits of vigorous innovation 
in computer and communications technology.
    You have my permission to publish these comments and to make 
whatever use of them in the Tunney Act proceedings you see fit. I 
hope these comments will be helpful to the Court.
    Respectfully submitted,
    Is the Microsoft Settlement in the Public Interest?
    The settlement negotiated between Microsoft and the Justice 
Department and several of the plaintiff States appears to rest on 
the dubious proposition that the public interest is synonymous with 
the summation of private interests. Secondly, while the settlement 
arguably addresses the ``middleware'' problem that was the 
focus of much attention in the trial, it is weak, if not completely 
ineffectual, with respect to the equally important prevention of 
Microsoft's apparent extension of its operating system monopoly to 
the most widely used business applications software programs. These 
observations are amplified below.
    While the Sherman Act provides for a private right of action 
seeking trebling of private damages suffered from monopolization, 
its strong feature was declaring monopoly and monopolization to be 
detrimental to the general public interest beyond the summation of 
losses to identifiable private parties who might sue. These days, in 
a case such as this, the loss to the general public interest might 
be seen as a stifling and channeling of innovation into forms 
approved by the monopolist, a hard-to-predict and quantify loss to 
an undefined and disparate ``public.'' This is the 
putative loss the Sherman Act is intended to mitigate through the 
Tunney Act proceedings. The Justice Department observed in its 
Competitive Impact Statement that the Court does not have the 
authority to write a different settlement that it might prefer and 
that what might emerge from further proceedings, and when, in the 
event the Court rejects the settlement as not in the public interest 
is indeterminate. It is also the case that several plaintiff States 
have not agreed to the instant settlement, though they could yet do 
so, suggesting that any final resolution with respect to their 
continuing action would need to be integrated, or made compatible, 
with this negotiated settlement in the event this settlement is 
accepted by the Court, if the public interest is not to be 
undermined by a patchwork of remedies applied to one monopolist by 
various parties. Moreover, it must also be observed that if this 
settlement is approved for all the practical reasons noted by the 
Justice Department, it is also nearly a foregone conclusion that 
another, more far-reaching governmental antitrust action against 
Microsoft is practically precluded during the five years duration of 
this consent decree, even if the consent decree were manifestly not 
working adequately. In the fast moving field of computers, software, 
communications, entertainment, and their conjunction--;of 
possibly great value to at least some members of the 
public--;five years is a long time. Lastly, it must be noted 
that Microsoft is likely to be the landmark case in applying 
antitrust law and principles to fast moving, high-technology 
businesses so it is important to get a sound foundation in place for 
future reference and consideration.
    The Court found at trial, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, 
that Microsoft has a monopoly in its Windows operating system for 
Intel-compatible personal computers (without any finding that its 
Windows monopoly is either per se unlawful or unlawfully obtained) 
and that Microsoft had reinforced and extended its monopoly by a 
variety of business practices that the instant remedy is intended to 
rectify. Indeed, the trial Court asserted at some length that 
computer operating systems may be a natural monopoly in that: (a) 
the customer generally is buying the computer for the functionality 
provided by their chosen application programs, (b) OEMS have an 
over-riding need to sell a machine that works with their hardware 
and the unknown customer's application programs, (c) software 
publishers find it easier and more economical to write for only one 
operating system rather than for several platforms, and (d) most 
customers want the operating system that works with the most readily 
available standard software so as to be protected with respect to 
future needs not fully foreseeable now.
    The Court's Findings of Fact noted that while most consumers 
might have no objection to a ``free'' internet browser 
bolted into their Windows operating system, many business customers 
might prefer not to make it easy for their employees to browse the 
Internet if their duties do not require it. More generally, there 
may be a broader divergence of what features, capabilities, and 
level of ``pre-integration'' is wanted and valued by 
household consumers and by business (office) customers for personal 
computers, and possibly by other significant identifiable market 
segments for personal computers. Whether or not the new features may 
be in some sense ``free'' of extra charge, they manifestly 
take up more memory, disk space, and other computer resources, none 
of which are free, and may be more prone to ``bugs'', 
security holes, and incompatibilities

[[Page 28305]]

unrelated to the features a particular user actually wants, needs, 
values, and in purchasing a personal computer system.
    Much of the trial was taken up with ``middleware'', in 
particular internet browsers and the Java programming language, as 
both were seen as actually--;or at least 
potentially--;offering a new standard set of applications 
programming interfaces (``hooks'') for other, unrelated 
application programs of possibly less market penetration potential, 
while the ``middleware'' itself is more susceptible of 
being made compatible with non-Windows operating systems (or even 
native code interfaces) on the machine hardware side. Others can 
comment more perceptively on how effectively the settlement 
addresses that problem through its proposed Technical Committee. 
Though not as thoroughly addressed at trial, Microsoft appears to 
have extended its Windows monopoly into the large business 
applications software market (e.g., word processing, spread-sheets, 
small databases) through the same kinds of business practices as 
were found unlawful with respect to ``middleware.'' That 
is, when word processing, spreadsheets, and databases were observed 
to be applications that were inducing businesses (including 
government, non-profit, etc., ``office'' environments) to 
buy computers to put on nearly every employee's desk, Microsoft 
first tried to program such applications themselves, then if 
unsuccessful, buy up a third-rate contender in the field, threaten 
the first-rate contender that if they didn't sell out Microsoft 
would not make new API ``hook'' information available to 
them on a competitively timely basis, and apparently design special, 
undisclosed ``hooks'' into Windows that would make 
Microsoft's own applications software run better, faster, and/or 
more reliably than competitors'' products, such compatibility 
providing great marketing advantage (and commanding higher market 
prices) over rival applications program publishers whose products 
might be functional superior to Microsoft's offerings in 
consumers'' perceptions. Microsoft thereby eventually 
established a monopoly for these widely used, and lucrative, 
``business'' application programs. Whether the Technical 
Committee approach proposed works for ``middleware'', 
where there are likely to be only a few, very sophisticated 
``middleware'' developers, it is likely to be much less 
successful in providing relief to general software and applications 
developers and publishers, who are less likely to have the depth of 
programming expertise of a middleware developer, or to be able to 
make a good case for requesting new API ``hooks'' of 
Microsoft's Windows that might be helpful to their new application, 
yet that might have the potential to become the new ``next big 
thing.'' (That adaptability for new or special needs is one of 
the great virtues of open-source operating systems like Linux as one 
can add new API hooks as needed and push them into the operating 
system when the application program loads. Microsoft, of course, is 
unalterably opposed to open-source software as an expropriation of 
their intellectual property. While that may be their legitimately 
chosen business strategy, it leaves them open to antitrust charges 
if they exercise monopoly power in pursuing such a strategy.)
    In summary, the Court should carefully consider whether the 
negotiated settlement decree will fully and reasonably protect the 
public from stifling and channeling of innovation in personal 
computers, aside from its direct effects on competitive private 
parties. In particular, the Court should inquire carefully into 
whether the Technical Committee approach underlying the proposed 
consent decree, particularly with respect to general applications 
developers/publishers as distinguished from ``middleware'' 
developers is sufficient to protect the public interest in this fast 
moving field.
    Respectfully submitted,
    Robert L. Randall
    The RainForest ReGeneration Institute
    1727 Massachusetts Avenue NW
    Washington, DC 20036
    Telephone: (202) 205-;3366
From: [email protected] @inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Renata B. Hesse:
    I beleive the Proposed Settlement with Microsoft is fair.It is 
time for the Government to move forward, lets get the economy back 
on its feet. This should be a good stimulus to the stock market and 
us individual investors.
    The DOJ should spend more time going after the Enron's who have 
been robbing the small investors of their pensions.
    John J. Strain
    16 Corte Almaden
    San Rafael, CA> 94903
    415-;492-;3310
    CC: [email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00028564

From: Katz, Diane S.
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 4:39pm
Subject: Microsoft
28 January 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, please accept these comments in 
support of the proposed settlement in the case of U.S. v. Microsoft. 
The Mackinac Center for Public Policy is an independent, non-profit 
research and educational institute dedicated to consumer choice and 
economic growth. Having closely followed the Microsoft case, we have 
concluded that consumers have largely benefited from the company's 
innovative products and services. In particular, the bundling of 
software applications has greatly enhanced consumer capability and 
convenience. In the absence of evidence of harm to consumers, it is 
in the public interest to end this protracted litigation. A 
settlement of the matter would allow Microsoft to focus its 
attention once again on producing useful products while also halting 
the enormous waste of taxpayers'' dollars on punishing private-
sector success.
    There is no question that Microsoft has proved to be an 
aggressive competitor. But there is no evidence of either a shortage 
of software products or rising prices. Indeed, the software market 
has grown tremendously in recent years while product prices have 
fallen dramatically. It thus appears that this case was largely 
provoked by rivals intent on gaining a competitive advantage through 
government force. The unjustified nature of the antitrust complaint 
does not warrant further punishment.
    Thank you for the opportunity for comment.
    Diane Katz
    Director of Science Environment and Technology Policy
    Mackinac Center for Public Policy
    140 West Main Street
    P.O. Box 568
    Midland, MI 48640



MTC-00028565

From: Mark Cooper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:38pm
Subject'' Microsoft Settlement
    Please accept the attached comments on behalf of a variety of 
consumer groups.
    Dr. Mark N. Cooper
    Director of Research
    Consumer Federation of America (www.consumerfed.org)
    mailto: [email protected]
    tel: 301/384-;2204
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, VS. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 
Defendant
    STATES OF NEW YORK ex rel. Attorney General ELIOT SPITZER, et 
al., Plaintiff, VS. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant
Civil Action No. 98-;1232 (CKK)
Civil Action No. 98-;1233 (CKK)
    Tunney Act Comments of
Consumer Federation of AmericaCalPIRG
Connecticut Citizen Action Group
ConnPIRG
Consumer Federation of California
Consumers Union
Florida Consumer Action Network
Florida PIRG
Iowa PIRG
Massachusetts Consumers'' Coalition
MassPIRG
Media Access Project
U.S. PIRG
Submitted January 25, 2002
    A FINAL JUDGMENT MUST CORRECT THE VIOLATION OF THE LAW
    THE MICROSOFT-DOJ PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT IS NOT IN THE PUBLIC 
INTEREST
    We find the Microsoft-Department of Justice final judgment 
proposal to be fundamentally flawed. It is as an entirely inadequate 
remedy to the sustained, egregious, illegal conduct engaged in by 
Microsoft to thwart competition in the software industry and protect 
and enhance its own monopolies. Because it fails to protect 
consumers, it fails to serve the public interest. It should be 
rejected by the District Court.

[[Page 28306]]

    FEDERAL LAW REQUIRES PUBLIC COMMENT. THE COURT SHOULD REVIEW ALL 
COMMENTS
    Federal antitrust law (Tunney Act, 15 U.S.C. 16) 
requires the Department of Justice to ``receive and 
consider'' comments related to the proposed Microsoft-DOJ 
resolution currently under review by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of 
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Judge Kollar-
Kotelly has ordered the Justice Department to provide to her by 
February 27 its response to comments received. The Tunney Act 
requires Judge Kollar-Kotelly, in turn, to determine whether the 
Microsoft-DOJ proposal is in the ``public interest'' To 
make that determination, she may --;to our mind must--; 
consider the competitive impact of the proposal, including:
    * termination of alleged violations and prevention of future 
monopolization,
    * provisions for enforcement and modification,
    * duration or relief sought,
    * anticipated effects of alternative remedies actually 
considered, and
    * any other considerations bearing upon the adequacy of such 
judgment.
    Under the Tunney Act, Judge Kollar-Kotelly is also given the 
option of reviewing the original comments provided to the Department 
of Justice, rather than just the DOJ's response to them. We believe 
that Judge Kollar-Kotelly should endeavor to read all comments 
submitted in this highly contentious and landmark case. We believe 
that the Department of Justice is institutionally disposed to give 
inadequate consideration to comments such as these critical to a 
resolution that it, along with Microsoft, has proposed.
    Our comments demonstrate that determining whether the DO J-
Microsoft proposal is in the public interest should be a fairly 
straight forward exercise. The proposal fails to terminate the 
antitrust violations of which Microsoft has been found guilty (at 
trial and on appeal). Its enforcement provisions are weak at best. 
It restricts Microsoft behavior for a much-too-short period of time. 
Myriad other problems, discussed below as well as in detailed 
analysis attached to these comments prepared by the Consumer 
Federation of America and Consumers, encumber and eviscerate an 
otherwise vague and loophole-fiddled settlement proposal. Finally, a 
strong, workable alternative remedy, advanced by the state attorneys 
general who continue to aggressively pursue the case, already has 
been submitted to the Court for review. Unlike the Microsoft-DOJ 
proposal, that alternative would protect consumers and the public 
interest. With such numerous and obvious shortcomings, the District 
Court should reject the Microsoft-DOJ proposal in short order.
    THE PUBLIC INTEREST TEST REQUIRES THAT FINAL JUDGMENT PROTECTS 
CONSUMERS
    We insist on such an outcome on behalf of our constituencies, 
who are America's average consumers. Our groups have worked on basic 
consumer pocketbook issues across the nation for decades, and our 
membership numbers in the tens of millions. We believe that the 
public interest in this case is properly understood to include the 
harms that average consumers have experienced due to Microsoft's 
illegally anti-competitive activities. Individual consumers 
ultimately paid the price of Microsoft's past abuses of monopoly 
power, directly and indirectly, and they will pay for a continuation 
of the Microsoft monopoly. Any remedy endorsed by the Court needs to 
benefit consumers by restoring competition in those segments of the 
software industry that Microsoft has monopolized or is in danger of 
monopolizing. We acknowledge that, considering Microsoft's long-
standing unfair business practices and deeply entrenched monopoly, 
such a task will not be easy. It is because of these same factors, 
however, that it is necessary.
    THE SOFTWARE INDUSTRY IS RIPE FOR COMPETITION AND DOES NOT LEND 
ITSELF NATURALLY TO MONOPOLY
    We begin by rejecting claims that the software industry is prone 
to natural monopoly.
    Were that the case, Microsoft would not have had to engage in 
its systematically anti- competitive practices to maintain and 
extend its monopolies. The trial record and reams of trade press 
accounts bear testimony to the unnatural acts embraced by Microsoft 
to create and protect its monopoly power over the years. These 
include leveraging the Windows operating system, slowing or stopping 
its own deployment cycle, denying access to application interfaces, 
threatening to deny access to its operating system, threatening to 
stop developing software for competing platforms, bloating the 
operating system with unnecessary functionality, hiding prices in 
whole computer configurations, compelling computer manufacturers 
(original equipment manufacturers, or OEMs) to use its browser, 
reaching pacts with other companies to deny the use of alternative 
browsers, and on and on. Though the Department of Justice at least 
appears to agree in principle that monopoly in the software industry 
is neither natural nor desirable, in practice its 
proposal--;prepared jointly with Microsoft allows for the 
continuation, if not exacerbation, of Microsoft market power.
    In our view, the software industry is ripe for competition. 
Competition would yield an explosion of innovation and consumer 
convenience. Consumers care about applications, not about operating 
systems. Furthermore, most consumers are inclined to invest time and 
money in functional applications that they reasonably feel will 
endure, be supported, and work compatibility with other programs and 
their hardware. Independent vendors are interested, therefore, in 
creating products that match consumer expectations.
    With the entrenched Microsoft monopoly, independent developers 
confront an applications barrier--;Microsoft has such a 
significant lock on the computer platform and on applications used, 
that many developers are dissuaded from producing new products. 
Should the Microsoft monopoly be broken down, developers would look 
to create compatible, consumer- friendly products. In fact, that is 
what Netscape and Sun attempted to do with Navigator and 
Java--;create software, known as ``middleware'' 
because they insert themselves between the operating system and 
applications running on top of the middleware. Because Netscape/Java 
was compatible across systems, it threatened Microsoft. Microsoft's 
reaction was to launch an illegal campaign to crush Netscape and 
undermine Java.
    Because Microsoft illegally undertook to prevent competition, 
consumers were left with products that did not honestly earn their 
place in the marketplace. Microsoft products have not been 
disciplined for price and quality by competitors because of the 
company's anti-competitive practices. Remove the monopoly, and an 
avalanche of competition --;aiming towards operable standards, 
innovative products, and better pricing--; will be unleashed. 
Such developments would provide undeniable benefit to consumers. The 
software market will support, and therefore the public interest 
demands, actual competition within and between markets.
    THE CHALLENGE BEFORE THE COURT
    MICROSOFT'S DEEP-ROOTED ANTI-COMPETITIVE BUSINESS MODEL
    Detailing Microsoft's anti-competitive business model is a 
nearly interminable task, though it was accomplished well by the 
District Court in its Findings of Fact, virtually all of which were 
upheld on appeal. The analysis attached by Consumer Federation of 
America and Consumers Union describe at length the depths to which 
Microsoft would sink to prop up its operating system monopoly, and 
to conquer other markets, such as for the browser and business 
productivity suites. The list of corporate victims is long, and 
includes not just Netscape and Sun, but also IBM, Intel, and Apple. 
Figure 1, below, summarizes in simple terms the barriers to 
competition that Microsoft has repeatedly erected. We reiterate that 
the Department of Justice and the Court should not lose sight of the 
fact that such practices ultimately negatively impact individual 
consumers, in the forms of higher prices, reduced choice, and 
inferior products and service.
    CONSUMERS ARE HARMED BY MICROSOFT'S ABUSE OF MARKET POWER
    Microsoft's widespread, unlawful practices, which the Microsoft-
DOJ proposal fails to correct, harm consumers both qualitatively and 
monetarily. The harms are sufficiently great to require that the 
Court avoid a ``quick fix.'' It is much more important to 
devote a reasonable amount of time to get the final judgment right 
and protect consumers.
    Microsoft's anticompetitive practices deny consumers choice. 
Microsoft strictly forces computer manufacturers to buy one bundle 
with all of its programs preloaded and biases the screen location, 
start sequences and default options. As a result, it becomes 
substantially difficult to choose non-Microsoft products. Products 
tailored to meet individual consumer needs (consumer friendly 
configurations, small bundles) are una vailable and eventually 
competing products disappear from the market. Further, by 
foreclosing the primary channels of

[[Page 28307]]

distribution with exclusive contracts and other deals, Microsoft 
forces consumers of non-Microsoft products to acquire them in time-
consuming and inconvenient ways.
    FIGURE 1: HOW MICROSOFT STOPS COMPETITION AND HARMS CONSUMERS 
CONSUMER
    DENY CUSTOMER CHOICE Force bundles so OEMs won't install 
competing software Control the boot screen and desktop Restrict 
icons and add/remove buttons
    CLOSE DOWN DISTRIBUTION<5>Exclusionary deals with Internet 
Access Providers. Prevent computer manufacturers from preinstalling 
non-Microsoft products Commingling code to make it hard to 
preinstall non-Microsoft products
    UNDERMINE FUNCTIONALITY DEVELOPMENT AND PRODUCT SUPPORT Restrict 
functionality Prevent developers from focusing on non-Microsoft 
products Deceive developers into supporting proprietary products 
Undermine compatibility Prevent support for competing products
    SOFTWARE DEVELOPER
    In addition, Microsoft's practices impair quality and 
innovation. Because of Microsoft's leveraging of the operating 
system, superior products are delayed or driven from the 
marketplace. The District Court noted at least six instances in 
which Microsoft sought to delay the development of competing 
products. It noted as well several instances in which it delayed the 
delivery of its own products to accomplish an anti-competitive 
purpose. Resources are denied to and investment is chilled in 
competing products, slowing advances in technology and rendering 
some libraries of content obsolete. In addition, in several 
instances the Court found that Microsoft had undermined the ability 
of software applications or middleware to function properly with the 
Windows operating system. Thus, Microsoft has been quite willing to 
undermine the quality of its own and of competing products to 
preserve its market dominance.
    In addition to qualitative harm, consumers have suffered 
monetary harm. The historical behavior of prices makes it possible 
to draw a direct line between competition and lower prices. 
Eliminating competition, as Microsoft has, results in higher prices. 
The fact that the excess price results from a failure to pass cost 
reductions through to consumers does not change the fact that 
consumers are overcharged. Nor does the fact that consumers do not 
pay for the software directly. In fact, there was a substantial 
increase in the price of Microsoft products in the 1990s that 
consumers paid in the price of the PCs they purchased. Of course, 
consumers do pay directly in the case of upgrades and for 
applications.
    The centerpiece of Microsoft's pricing strategy has been to 
increase operating system prices while other components of the 
delivered PC bundle have fallen. Evidence at trial gave explicit 
estimates of the price of operating systems. The average 
preinstalled price is given as $19 in 1990 and over $49 in 1996. 
During that time span the average Microsoft revenue for preinstalled 
software rose from $25 to $62. Microsoft recognizes that it has been 
the beneficiary of volume growth created by the falling price of the 
PC, which masks its increasing prices. Thus, one of the key elements 
in Microsoft's business model is to bury its products in bundles. 
This hides the price from the public and allows Microsoft to hide 
behind the declining price of the total package.
    The Consumer Federation of America has estimated that in the 
five years between the start of the anticompetitive attack on the 
browser in 1995 and the District Court finding of liability, 
Microsoft overcharged consumers by about $20 billion. The economic 
analysis of other experts suggests overcharges of as much as $30 
billion.
    In addition to direct monetary costs, indirect monetary costs of 
the Microsoft monopoly also present themselves. Though difficult to 
calculate, they are no less significant, and demand to be 
considered. Consumers, individual and corporate, have undoubtedly 
lost hundreds of millions of dollars due to such issues as training, 
rapid upgrade cycles, software crashes, bloated bundles, debugging, 
service, and hardware upgrades.
    WINDOWS XP/.NET, LEFT UNCHECKED, ENHANCES AND EXPANDS THE 
MICROSOFT MONOPOLY
    Microsoft's brazen disrespect for the antitrust laws is nowhere 
more readily apparent than in the design of its newest bundle of 
products (``Windows XP,'' and the ``.NET'' 
initiative, hereafter referred to as ``Windows XP/.NET'). The 
product is so blatantly at odds with the Court's ruling Microsoft 
must have designed it on the mistaken assumption that Microsoft 
would prevail in its appeal.
    The extreme reliance of ``Windows XP/.NET'' on a huge 
bundle of entire applications and the continued reliance on 
contractual and technological bundling fly in the face of the 
Court's cautionary words. Windows XP and the .NET initiative are a 
bundle of services bolted together by technological links (code 
embedded in the operating system), contractual requirements, and 
marketing leverage.
    The software, applications, and services that Microsoft has 
bundled cover all of the functionalities that are converging on the 
Internet, including communications, commerce, applications, and 
service. Today these Internet activities are vigorously competitive, 
just as the browser was before Microsoft launched its victorious 
attack against Netscape. In other words, the anticompetitive and 
illegal business practices Microsoft used to win the browser war are 
being extended to virtually every other application that consumers 
use. The bundle is built on commingled code, proprietary languages, 
and exclusive functionalities that are promoted by restrictive 
licenses, refusal to support competing applications, embedded links, 
and deceptive messages. A strong remedy, unlike the weak one 
proposed by Microsoft and the Justice Department, is needed before 
Microsoft becomes the monopolist of virtually all computer and 
Internet applications.
    THE PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT FAILS TO PROTECT INDEPENDENT 
SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS, COMPUTER MANUFACTURERS, AND CONSUMERS
    The history of the case and our analysis of the software 
industry show that in order for new software to have a fair chance 
to compete, the remedy must:
    ï¿½ create an environment in which independent software 
vendors and alternative platform developers are free to develop 
products that compete with Windows and with other Microsoft 
products,
    * free computer manufacturers to install these products without 
fear of retaliation, and
    * enable consumers to choose among them with equal ease as with 
Microsoft products.
    The Microsoft-Department of Justice settlement is an abysmal 
failure at all three levels. Under the proposed Microsoft-Department 
of Justice settlement, Microsoft will be undeterred from continuing 
its anticompetitive business practices.
    INDEPENDENT SOFTWARE VENDORS GET LITTLE RELIEF UNDER THE 
MICROSOFT-DOJ PROPOSAL
    Independent software vendors and competing platform developers 
will get little relief from Microsoft's continual practice of hiding 
and manipulating interfaces. Microsoft has the unreviewable ability 
under the proposed settlement to define Windows itself. It therefore 
controls whether and how independent software developers will be 
able to write programs that run on top of the operating system. The 
definitions of software products and functionalities and the 
decisions about how to configure applications programming interfaces 
(APIs) are left in the hands of Microsoft to an extreme extent. As a 
consequence, the company will be encouraged to embed critical 
technical specifications deeply into the operating system and 
thereby prevent independent software developers from seeing them. To 
the extent that Microsoft would actually be required to reveal 
anything, it would be so late in the product development cycle that 
independent software developers would never be able to catch up to 
Microsoft's favored developers.
    Furthermore, the Court of Appeals recognized that the Microsoft 
monopoly is protected by a large barrier to entry, as many crucial 
applications are available only for Windows. The proposed settlement 
does nothing to eliminate this ``applications barrier to 
entry,'' such as by requiring the porting of Microsoft Office 
to other PC platforms. Rather than restore competition, the 
Microsoft-DOJ proposal all but legalizes Microsoft's previous 
anticompetitive strategy and institutionalizes the Windows monopoly.
    COMPUTER MANUFACTURERS HAVE LITTLE ABILITY OR INCENTIVE TO 
INSTALL NON-MICROSOFT PRODUCTS UNDER THE PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT
    The Microsoft-DOJ proposal does not shield computer 
manufacturers from Microsoft retaliation. The restriction on 
retaliation against computer manufacturers leaves so many loopholes 
that any OEM who actually offended Microsoft's wishes would be 
committing commercial suicide. Microsoft is given free reign to 
favor some, at the expense of others, through incentives and joint 
ventures. It is free to withhold access to its other two monopolies 
(the browser and

[[Page 28308]]

Microsoft Office) as an inducement to favor the applications that 
Microsoft is targeting at new markets, inviting a repeat of the 
fiasco in the browser wars. Retaliation in any way, shape, fit, 
form, or fashion should be illegal. Any adequate remedy, unlike the 
Microsoft- DOJ proposal, must include a prohibition on retaliation 
that specifically identifies price and non- price discrimination as 
well as applying to all monopoly products.
    CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY IS NOT RESTORED BY THE SETTLEMENT.
    Because the proposed settlement requires no removal of 
applications, only the hiding of icons, Microsoft preserves the 
ability to neuter consumer choice. The boot screen and desktop 
remain entirely tilted against competition. Microsoft retains the 
ability to be the pervasive default option and is allowed to harass 
consumers who switch to non-Microsoft applications. Furthermore, it 
still gets to sweep third party applications off the desktop, 
forcing consumers to choose them over and over.
    GIVEN MICROSOFT'S PAST BEHAVIOR, ENFORCEMENT MUST BE SWIFT WITH 
SUBSTANTIAL SANCTIONS FOR NON-COMPLIANCE, BUT THE PFJ PROVIDES NO 
SUCH MECHANISMS
    After the District Court identifies remedies that can address 
these problems, it must enforce them swiftly and aggressively. 
Microsoft has shown --;through a decade of investigations, 
consent decrees and litigation--; that it will not easily be 
deterred from defending and extending its monopoly. Microsoft 
behaves as though it believes it has the right to do anything to 
eradicate competition. Every one of the illegal acts that led to the 
District Court findings of liability, unanimously upheld on appeal, 
took place after Microsoft signed its last consent decree.
    With three monopolies to use against its potential competitors 
(the Windows operating system, the Internet Explorer browser, and 
Office in desktop applications), enforcement must be swift and sure, 
or competition will never have a chance to take root. The proposed 
settlement offers virtually nothing in this regard. The technical 
committee set up to (maybe) hear complaints can be easily tied up in 
knots by Microsoft because of the vague language that creates it. 
Because of the delay in its implementation, the crucial element of 
API disclosure will be in place for only four years. If Microsoft 
violates the settlement, nothing happens to the company, except that 
it must ``endure'' the annoyance of this weak settlement 
for an additional two years. Moreover, Virtually every specific 
measure of the proposed settlement is either fiddled with 
ambiguities or put under the sole discretion of Microsoft. In other 
words, Microsoft defines its own sanctions. The Department of 
Justice and the Court must not forget that independent software 
vendors were the targets of Microsoft's campaign and that the 
competitive process in the software market was its victim. When we 
review the question of whether the proposed settlement will lift the 
yoke of anticompetitive practices from this market, we find that it 
will not (see Figure 2). Under the proposed settlement, Microsoft 
preserves immense market power and discretion. The settlement cannot 
work to restore competition because independent software developers 
will not be freed to produce software products in a competitively 
neutral environment. As a result, consumers will continue to suffer 
at the hands of the Microsoft monopolies. The proposed settlement 
does not serve the public interest and must be rejected.
    FIGURE 2: SOFTWARE COMPETITION WILL NOT BE RESTORED BECAUSE THE 
SETTLEMENT DOES NOT CREATE A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD FOR INDEPENDENT 
SOFTWARE VENDORS
    DO I HAVE A FAIR CHANCE TO HAVE CONSUMERS USE MY PRODUCT?
    Consumers have to choose my software twice to get my icon on the 
screen.
    Consumers never have to choose Microsoft's; it's still the 
default.
    Microsoft can sweep my icon off the system every 14 days.
    WILL OEMs PUT MY PRODUCT ON THE PC?
    Microsoft's code is guaranteed to be in every PC, only its icons 
are removed.
    My code gets into only those PCs that I convince OEMs to 
install.
    Microsoft can still give OEMs ``considerations'' to 
promote its product.
    Microsoft can engage in Joint Ventures and prevent OEMs from 
using mine.
    Microsoft can leverage its monopoly applications to keep my 
products out.
    WHAT APIs DO I GET TO SEE?
    Only APIs for products Microsoft has already developed.
    Only APIs that Microsoft has decided not to move into the 
operating system.
    Only APIs that Microsoft decides do not compromise its piracy, 
virus, licensing, digital rights management, encryption or 
authentication systems.
    WHEN DO I GET TO SEE THE APIs?
    Very late in the process, after Microsoft has had a huge head 
start in developing its products.



MTC-00028566

From: Michael Leibowitz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement stinks. What public good does it 
serve?! The enforcement provisions are a farce!
    Michael Leibowitz 
[[email protected]]
    Applications Engineer, Embedded Processors
    Cirrus Logic, Inc.
    4210 S. Industrial Dr.
    Austin, TX 78744
    (512)912-;6592



MTC-00028567

From: Michael Shaw
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 4:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Michael Shaw
Systems Administrator
Johnson & Wales University
8 Abbott Park Place
Providence, Rhode Island 02903
P: 401-;598-;4357 F 401-;598-;1511
Michael Shaw
Johnson & Wales University
8 Abbott Park Place
Providence, RI 02903
January 27, 2002
John Ashcroft, Attorney General
Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    Based on my background and experience in the technology 
industry, I think that the Microsoft antitrust case should be 
settled on the terms that are on the table now. Obviously, the terms 
could be tinkered with endlessly. Still, after three months of 
negotiate with the mediator appointed by the new federal judge on 
the case, the parties should have had ample opportunity to make the 
agreement as good as they could get it. The terms of the agreement 
will make it easier to work with Microsoft, which has been a 
stickler for holding to its legal fight from copyright and patent 
infringement, to driving a hard bargain in contract negotiations. 
For example, Microsoft has been insisting on exclusive marketing 
agreements, under which a personal computer, PC, building company 
must put Microsoft's Windows operating system on all of its 
computers or not receive the legal fight to use Windows at all. The 
other terms reflect the same opening up of Microsoft to enable its 
partners, rival and competitors an even greater participation in its 
overwhelming, and hard earned, success. This settlement will be good 
from computing, and good for America.
    Thank you for your leadership on this issue.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Shaw



MTC-00028568

From: Hamid Tabassian
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
Fax: 1-;202-;307-;1454 or
1-;202-;616-;9937
Email: [email protected]
    I believe the terms that Microsoft has met or gone beyond the 
findings of the Court of Appeals ruling are reasonable and fair to 
all parties involved. Furthermore, I believe this settlement 
represents the best opportunity for Microsoft and the industry to 
move forward.
    Thank you.
    Hamid Tabassian
    128 Sawmill Lakes Blvd
    Ponte Vedra, FL 32082



MTC-00028569

From: Brian Greenwood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings,
    As an executive,engineer and inventor (20+ patents) I would like 
to provide the following comments as the final decisions are made 
concerning the Microsoft Settlement.

[[Page 28309]]

    I have been a user of Microsoft Products since buying my first 
personal computer in about 1983. I have also been responsible for 
the coordination of information technology within my employer's 
organization. In submitting these comments, I am not claiming to 
represent the official position of my current employer, but only my 
personal views.
    The standardization in file formats and software interfaces over 
the years has greatly improved the ability of people to communicate 
with each other both within organizations and between organizations. 
Much of this standardization has come because people selected 
Microsoft's Products instead of those of other vendors. Taken as a 
whole, Microsoft's solutions have been superior to those offered by 
other vendors. The network effect of many users using a common tool 
has driven the level of deployment of Microsoft's products.
    Do not go beyond the current settlement and impair the ability 
of Microsoft's engineers and programmers to create new and improve 
their existing software. It should not be the the role of Government 
to be in the middle of a company's design efforts.
    The current settlement takes sufficient steps to correct the 
commercial missteps which were made by the Microsoft team.
    Sincerely,
    Brian F. Greenwood
    6007 Castleton Manor
    Cumming, Georgia 30041
    email: [email protected]



MTC-00028570

From: Ernest W.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
US Department Of Justice,
    I'm writing to offer support for Microsoft's position in the 
current Antitrust scenario against them. I feel that the government 
should NOT take adverse action against Microsoft. The marketplace 
will do that if the company deserves it. Other parties against 
Microsoft in the business realm stand to gain financially against 
Microsoft if the software giant gets penalized. They would therefore 
offer tons of reasons why Microsoft should be penalized--;of 
course.
    Please leave business matters of this sort to the marketplace 
and consumers instead of lawyers eager for their fees and jealous 
business rivals holding daggers behind them.
    Thank you.
    Ernest Wiatrek
    19203 CR 341
    Abilene, TX 79601
    Ph: 915-;676-;4178



MTC-00028571

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: [email protected]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
28 January 2002
    Ms. Hesse, 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. Please find my comments below. A copy of my 
comments is also posted on the Web at http://kegel.com/remedy/
remedy2.html.
    Sincerely,
    Dan Kegel
    901 S. Sycamore
    Los Angeles, CA 90036
    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 .7 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 some 
idea of how the PFJ proposes to answer those questions:
    PFJ Section III: Prohibited Conduct
    A. 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 (OE).
    B. Microsoft will publish the wholesale prices it charges the 
top 20 OEMs (Original Equipment Manufacturers) for Windows.
    C. Microsoft will allow OEMs to customize the Windows menus, 
desktop, and boot sequence, and will allow the use of non-Microsoft 
bootloaders.
    D. Microsoft will publish on MSDN (the Microsoft Developer 
Network) the APIs used by IE, MJ, WMP, WM, and OE, so that competing 
web browsers, media players, and

[[Page 28310]]

email clients can plug in properly to Windows.
    E. Microsoft will license on reasonable terms the network 
protocols needed for non-Microsoft applications or operating systems 
to connect to Windows servers.
    F. Microsoft will not force business partners to refrain from 
supporting competitors to Windows, IE, M J, WMP, WM, or OE.
    G. (Roughly same as F above.)
    H. Microsoft will let users and OEMs remove icons for IE, MJ, 
WMP, WM, and OE, and let them designate competing products to be 
used instead.
    I. Microsoft will license on reasonable terms any intellectual 
property rights needed for other companies to take advantage of the 
terms of this settlement.
    J. This agreement lets Microsoft keep secret anything having to 
do with security or copy protection.
    PFJ Section VI: Definitions
    A. ``API'' (Application Programming Interface) is 
defined as only the interfaces between Microsoft Middleware and 
Microsoft Windows, excluding Windows APIs used by other application 
programs.
    K. ``Microsoft Middleware Product'' is defined as 
Internet Explorer (IE), Microsoft lava (MJ), Windows Media Player 
(WMP), Windows Messenger (WM), and Outlook Express (OE).
    U. ``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:
    1. 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.
    2. 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:
    1. By forbidding retaliation against OEMs, ISVs, and IHVs who 
support or develop alternatives to Windows.
    2. By taking various measures to ensure that Windows allows the 
use of non-Microsoft middleware. 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 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

[[Page 28311]]

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 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

[[Page 28312]]

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 fight 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. I 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
    o 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 
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
    Time constraints do not permit a complete list of needed 
changes. As an example, 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

[[Page 28313]]

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.
    Release of Information
    Because any new competitor in the Intel-compatible operating 
system market 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 forty-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 modem 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.
    To achieve the above goals, the PFJ should be modified as 
follows:
    First, Sections III.D and III.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 
interoperating with application software written for Windows,
    Second, a new section IV.E should be created as follows:
    E. Establishment of a Windows API Standards Expert Group
    1. 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 a Windows APIs 
Standards Definition (``WASD'') and associated Windows 
APIs Standard Compliance Test Suite (``WASCTS''), and to 
guide the WASD through the process of being adopted by a standards 
body such as ECMA or the IEEE.
    The WASD shall be a document, suitable for approval by a 
standards body such as ECMA or IEEE, which accurately defines the 
inputs, outputs, and behavior of each Windows API, and enumerates 
any Essential Claims.
    The WASCTS shall be software source code which, when compiled 
and run, automatically tests an operating system for compliance with 
the WASD, and produces a list of APIs which fail to comply with the 
WASD. The test suite should run unattended; that is, it should be 
capable of running without human interaction or supervision.
    2. 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 he or she be so employed during his or her term on the WASEG.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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:
    a. 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.
    b. 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.
    7. Microsoft shall provide the WASEG with funds needed to 
procure office space, telephone, other office support facilities, 
consultants, or contractors required by the WASEG.
    8. The WASEG shall not have direct access to any part of 
Microsoft's computer software source code that is not normally 
available to all ISVs. 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.
    9. The WASEG shall have the following powers and duties:
    a. The WASEG may require Microsoft to provide comprehensive 
answers to questions about Microsoft intellectual property claims.
    b. 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.
    c. 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.
    d. The WASEG shall establish a publicly available web she 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.
    e. The WASEG shall compile to the best of their ability 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 an estimate of 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

[[Page 28314]]

publish this information for at least five hundred Windows APIs. On 
the 1st of each month thereafter, the WASEG shall publish this 
information for another five hundred Windows APIs. This shall 
continue until a complete list of Windows APIs is available on the 
web site. The WASEG shall update the list periodically to add 
previously unlisted Windows APIs. The WASEG shall periodically check 
the list for completeness by installing and running a representative 
sample of Popular Windows Applications and Microsoft Middleware 
while using tools such as Apius from Sarion Systems Research to 
watch the Windows APIs actually invoked by the product or its 
installer. The WASEG shall also set up a way for third parties to 
report Windows APIs which should be listed, and shall update its 
list of Windows APIs accordingly as appropriate.
    f. The WASEG shall compile a complete list of Essential Claims, 
and an evaluation of which Windows APIs each Essential Claim covers. 
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 publishes a portion of the list 
of Windows APIs on its web site, Microsoft shall deliver to the 
WASEG a list of the Essential Claims that cover the published 
Windows APIs. Within 90 days after the WASEG receives the list of 
Essential Claims, the WASEG shall publish its evaluation of which 
APIs those Essential Claims cover. This shall continue until such 
evaluations for all Essential Claims have been published on the 
WASEG web site.
    g. 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.
    h. When the three documents described above--;the list of 
Windows APIs, the list of Essential Claims and which Windows APIs 
they cover, 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 Draft WASD Document, 
and to make such enhancements and revisions as needed to gain the 
acceptance of that document as a standard.
    i. The WASEG shall create a WASCTS, 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 one hundred Windows 
APIs. On the 1st of each month thereafter, the WASEG shall publish 
test cases for at least another one hundred Windows APIs. This shall 
continue until a complete WASCTS is available on the web site.
    j. 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 or Essential Claims, or WASEG's list of Windows APIs is 
updated, the WASEG shall create addenda to the WASD and WASCTS 
covering the new Windows APIs or Essential Claims, 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.
    Third, in section VI, Definition A should be amended to read
    A. ``Application Programming Interfaces (APIs)'' means 
the interfaces, including any associated callback interfaces, that [ 
Microsoft Middleware running on a Windows Operating System Product 
uses to call upon that Windows Operating System Product in order to 
obtain any services from that Windows Operating System Product. ] 
Microsoft Middleware or Popular Windows Applications running or 
being installed on a Windows Operating System Product use to call 
upon that Windows Operating System Product or Microsoft Middleware 
in order to obtain any services from that Windows Operating System 
Product or Microsoft Middleware.
    and two new definitions should be added:
    V. ``Popular Windows Applications'' means 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 Claims'' shall mean all claims in any 
patent or patent application, in any jurisdiction in the world, that 
Microsoft owns, or under which Microsoft has the right to grant 
licenses without obligation of payment or other consideration to an 
unrelated third party, that would necessarily be infringed by 
implementation of the Windows APIs Standard Definition by a 
competing Operating System. A claim is necessarily infringed 
hereunder only when it is not possible to avoid infringing it 
because there is no non-infringing alternative for implementing the 
required portion of the Windows APIs Standard Definition.
    The following are expressly excluded from and shall not be 
deemed to constitute Essential Claims:
    1. any claims other than as set forth above even if contained in 
the same patent as Essential Claims; and
    2. claims which would be infringed only by portions of an 
implementation that are not required by the Windows APIs Standard 
Definition, or enabling technologies that may be necessary to make 
or use any product or portion thereof that complies with the Windows 
APIs Standard Definition but are not themselves expressly set forth 
in the Windows APIs Standard Definition (e.g., compiler technology, 
object-oriented technology, etc.) or the implementation of 
technology developed elsewhere and merely incorporated by reference 
in the body of the Windows APIs Standard Definition.
    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
    28 January 2002
    To: [email protected]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
28 January 2002
    Ms. Hesse,
    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.
    Please find my comments below. A copy of my comments is also 
posted on the Web at http://kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html.
    Sincerely,
    Dan Kegel
    901 S. Sycamore
    Los Angeles, CA 90036
    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

[[Page 28315]]

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:
    * ï¿½ How should terms like ``API'', 
``Middleware'', and ``Windows OS'' be defined?
    * ï¿½ How should the Final Judgment erode the Applications 
Barrier to Entry?
    * ï¿½ How should the Final Judgment be enforced?
    * ï¿½ What information needs to be released to ISVs to 
encourage competition, and under what terms?
    * ï¿½ Which practices towards OEMs should be prohibited?
    * Which practices towards ISVs should be prohibited?
    * Which practices towards large users should be prohibited?
    * ï¿½ 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 some 
idea of how the PFJ proposes to answer those questions:
    PFJ Section III: Prohibited Conduct
    A. 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 (OE).
    B. Microsoft will publish the wholesale prices it charges the 
top 20 OEMs (Original Equipment Manufacturers) for Windows.
    C. Microsoft will allow OEMs to customize the Windows menus, 
desktop, and boot sequence, and will allow the use of non-Microsoft 
bootloaders.
    D. Microsoft will publish on MSDN (the Microsoft Developer 
Network) the APIs used by IE, MJ, WMP, WM, and OE, so that competing 
web browsers, media players, and email clients can plug in properly 
to Windows.
    E. Microsoft will license on reasonable terms the network 
protocols needed for non-Microsoft applications or operating systems 
to connect to Windows servers.
    F. Microsoft will not force business partners to refrain from 
supporting competitors to Windows, IE, MJ, WMP, WM, or OE.
    G. (Roughly same as F above.)
    H. Microsoft will let users and OEMs remove icons for IE, MJ, 
WMP, WM, and OE, and let them designate competing products to be 
used instead.
    I. Microsoft will license on reasonable terms any intellectual 
property rights needed for other companies to take advantage of the 
terms of this settlement.
    J. This agreement lets Microsoft keep secret anything having to 
do with security or copy protection.
    PFJ Section VI: Definitions
    A. ``API'' (Application Programming Interface) is 
defined as only the interfaces between Microsoft Middleware and 
Microsoft Windows, excluding Windows APIs used by other application 
programs.
    K. ``Microsoft Middleware Product'' is defined as 
Internet Explorer (IE), Microsoft Java (MJ), Windows Media Player 
(WMP), Windows Messenger (WM), and Outlook Express (OE).
    U. ``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:
    * ï¿½ 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 otherapplication 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:
    1. 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.
    2. 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,

[[Page 28316]]

 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:
    1. By forbidding retaliation against OEMs, ISVs, and IHVs who 
support or develop alternatives to Windows.
    2. By taking various measures to ensure that Windows allows the 
use of non-Microsoft middleware.
    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 (paragraph 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 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 (paragraph 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.

[[Page 28317]]

    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 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:
    * ï¿½ 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.
    ï¿½ 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.

[[Page 28318]]

    ?? 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,
    * ï¿½ 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 
discussing amendments, PFJ text is shown indented; removed text in 
[], and new text in bold italics.
    Correcting the PFJ's definitions
    Time constraints do not permit a complete list of needed 
changes. As an example, Definition U should be amended to read
    U. ``Windows Operating System Product'' means [] 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.
    Release of Information
    Because any new competitor in the Intel-compatible operating 
system market 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 modem 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.
    To achieve the above goals, the PFJ should be modified as 
follows:
    First, Sections III.D and III.E should be amended to remove the 
restriction on the use of the disclosed information:
    ... Microsoft shall disclose ... [], for the purpose of 
interoperating with a Windows Operating System Product or 
interoperating with application software written for Windows,
    Second, a new section IV.E should be created as follows:
    E. Establishment of a Windows API Standards Expert Group
    1. 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 a Windows APIs 
Standards Definition (``WASD'') and associated Windows 
APIs Standard Compliance Test Suite (``WASCTS''), and to 
guide the WASD through the process of being adopted by a standards 
body such as ECMA or the IEEE.
    The WASD shall be a document, suitable for approval by a 
standards body such as ECMA or IEEE, which accurately defines the 
inputs, outputs, and behavior of each Windows API, and enumerates 
any Essential Claims. The WASCTS shah be software source code which, 
when compiled and run, automatically tests an operating system for 
compliance with the WASD, and produces a list of APIs which fail to 
comply with the WASD. The test suite should run unattended; that is, 
it should be capable of running without human interaction or 
supervision.
    2. Three of the WASEG members shah be experts in software design 
and programming, and three of the WASEG members shall be experts in 
intellectual property law. No WASEG member shah 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 shah have entered into any non-disclosure 
agreement that is still in force with Microsoft or any competitor to 
Microsoft, nor shah she or he enter into such an agreement during 
her or his term on the WASEG. Without limitation to the foregoing, 
no WASEG member shah have been employed in any capacity by Microsoft 
or any competitor to Microsoft within the past year, nor shall he or 
she be so employed during his or her term on the WASEG.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Promptly after appointment of the WASEG by the Court, the 
United States shall

[[Page 28319]]

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:
    a. 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.
    b. 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.
    7. Microsoft shall provide the WASEG with funds needed to 
procure office space, telephone, other office support facilities, 
consultants, or contractors required by the WASEG.
    8. The WASEG shall not have direct access to any part of 
Microsoft's computer software source code that is not normally 
available to all ISVs. 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.
    9. The WASEG shall have the following powers and duties:
    a. The WASEG may require Microsoft to provide comprehensive 
answers to questions about Microsoft intellectual property claims.
    b. 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.
    c. 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.
    d. 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.
    e. The WASEG shall compile to the best of their ability 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 an estimate of 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 five hundred 
Windows APIs. On the 1st of each month thereafter, the WASEG shall 
publish this information for another five hundred Windows APIs. This 
shall continue until a complete list of Windows APIs is available on 
the web site. The WASEG shall update the list periodically to add 
previously unlisted Windows APIs. The WASEG shall periodically check 
the list for completeness by installing and running a representative 
sample of Popular Windows Applications and Microsoft Middleware 
while using tools such as Apius from Sarion Systems Research to 
watch the Windows APIs actually invoked by the product or its 
installer. The WASEG shall also set up a way for third parties to 
report Windows APIs which should be listed, and shall update its 
list of Windows APIs accordingly as appropriate.
    f. The WASEG shall compile a complete list of Essential Claims, 
and an evaluation of which Windows APIs each Essential Claim covers. 
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 publishes a 
portion of the list of Windows APIs on its web site, Microsoft shall 
deliver to the WASEG a list of the Essential Claims that cover the 
published Windows APIs. Within 90 days after the WASEG receives the 
list of Essential Claims, the WASEG shall publish its evaluation of 
which APIs those Essential Claims cover. This shall continue until 
such evaluations for all Essential Claims have been published on the 
WASEG web site.
    g. 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/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.
    h. When the three documents described above--;the list of 
Windows APIs, the list of Essential Claims and which Windows APIs 
they cover, 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 Draft WASD Document, 
and to make such enhancements and revisions as needed to gain the 
acceptance of that document as a standard.
    i. The WASEG shall create a WASCTS, 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 one hundred Windows 
APIs. On the 1st of each month thereafter, the WASEG shall publish 
test cases for at least another one hundred Windows APIs. This shall 
continue until a complete WASCTS is available on the web site.
    j. 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 or Essential Claims, or WASEG's list of Windows APIs is 
updated, the WASEG shall create addenda to the WASD and WASCTS 
covering the new Windows APIs or Essential Claims, 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.
    Third, in section VI, Definition A should be amended to read
    A. ``Application Programming Interfaces (APIs)'' means 
the interfaces, including any associated callback interfaces, that 
Microsoft Middleware or Popular Windows Applications running or 
being installed on a Windows Operating System Product use to call 
upon that Windows Operating System Product or Microsoft Middleware 
in order to obtain any services from that Windows Operating System 
Product or Microsoft Middleware. and two new definitions should be 
added:
    V. ``Popular Windows Applications'' means 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 Claims'' shall mean all claims in any 
patent or patent application, in any jurisdiction in the world, that 
Microsoft owns, or under which Microsoft has the right to grant 
licenses without obligation of payment or other consideration to an 
unrelated third party, that would necessarily be infringed by 
implementation of the Windows APIs Standard Definition by a 
competing Operating System. A claim is necessarily infringed 
hereunder only when it is not possible to avoid infringing it 
because there is no non-infringing alternative for implementing the 
required portion of the Windows APIs Standard Definition.
    The following are expressly excluded from and shall not be 
deemed to constitute Essential Claims:
    1. any claims other than as set forth above even if contained in 
the same patent as Essential Claims; and
    2. claims which would be infringed only by portions of an 
implementation that are not required by the Windows APIs Standard 
Definition, or enabling technologies that may be necessary to make 
or use any product or portion thereof that complies with the Windows 
APIs Standard Definition but are not themselves expressly set forth 
in the Windows APIs Standard Definition (e.g., compiler technology, 
object-oriented technology, etc.) or the implementation of 
technology developed elsewhere and merely incorporated by reference 
in the body of the Windows APIs Standard Definition.
    Prohibition of More Practices Toward OEMs
    III. A. 2. of the Proposed Final Judgment should be 
amended to read

[[Page 28320]]

    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
    28 January 2002



MTC-00028572

From: Riddle, Doug
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 4:39pm
Subject: Micrsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    Whatever steps necessary to bring Microsoft onto a level playing 
field where they are accountable to the users of their software and 
their competitors should be used. Their software is a National 
Security risk and their corporate policies toward competitors only 
serve to increase that risk. Do not settle out of court.
    Regards,
    Doug Riddle
    EMCO / Addis MIS Dept.
    Mobile (225) 806-;9715
    Pager: (225) 339-;8275
    Office: (225) 267-;3225
    Home: (225) 775-;5691
    Disclaimer
    1. This e-mail is for the intended recipient only. If you have 
received it by mistake please let us know by reply and then delete 
it from your system; access, disclosure, copying, distribution or 
reliance on any of it by anyone else is prohibited.
    2. If you as intended recipient have received this e-mail 
incorrectly, please notify the sender (via e-mail) immediately. This 
e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. DSM does not 
guarantee that the information sent and/or received by or with this 
e-mail is correct and does not accept any liability for damages 
related thereto.



MTC-00028573

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:40pm
Subject: Micrsoft Settlement
(corrected date)
Open Letter to DOJ Re: Microsoft Settlement
To: [email protected]
Subject: Micrsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
28 January 2002
Ms. Hesse,
    Please find below a joint open letter signed by 2366 people from 
across the United States. I composed the open letter and offered to 
collect signatures by email as a simple way for people to express 
their views on the Proposed Final Judgment.
    I certify that the following list of names was compiled from 
email sent to [email protected]; that return 
email was used to provide some small degree of assurance that each 
submission came from a valid email address; and that I have verified 
to the best of my ability that all co-signers are US residents or 
citizens.
    I am sending the document (http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
remedy2.html) referenced in the joint open letter under separate 
cover as my personal Tunney Act comment.
    Sincerely,
    Dan Kegel
    901 S. Sycamore
    Los Angeles, CA 90036
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Ms. Hesse,
    Under the Tunney Act, we wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. We agree with the problems identified in Dan 
Kegel's analysis (on the Web at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
remedy2.html), namely:
    * The PFJ doesn't take into account Windows-compatible competing 
operating systems
    o 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
    o 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 and 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 competing operating systems such as Linux! 
(Similar licenses to OEMs were once banned by the 1994 consent 
decree,)
    * The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Intentional Incompatibilities 
Historically Used by Microsoft
    . Microsoft has in the past inserted intentional 
incompatibilities in its applications to keep them from running on 
competing operating systems.
    * The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive Practices Towards 
OEMs
    . The PFJ allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM that 
ships Personal Computers containing a competing Operating System but 
no Microsoft operating system.
    . The PFJ allows Microsoft to discriminate against small 
OEMs--;including regional ``white box'' OEMs which are 
historically the most willing to install competing operating 
systems--;who ship competing software.
    . The PFJ allows Microsoft to offer discounts on Windows (MDAs) 
to OEMs based on criteria like sales of Microsoft office or Pocket 
PC systems. This allows Microsoft to leverage its monopoly on Intel-
compatible operating systems to increase its market share in other 
areas.
    * The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an effective 
enforcement mechanism. We also agree with the conclusion reached by 
that document, namely that the Proposed Final Judgment, as written, 
allows and encourages significant anticompetitive practices to 
continue, would delay the emergence of competing Windows-compatible 
operating systems, and is therefore not in the public interest.
    It should not be adopted without substantial revision to address 
these problems.
    Sincerely,
    Aaron Croyle, Columbus, Ohio; Student, Ohio State University
    Aaron Hamid, Ithaca, NY; Java Applications Developer, Cornell 
University
    Aaron J. Grier, Portland, OR; Embedded Systems Engineer, Frye 
Electronics
    Aaron Krol, Elma, NY; Electrical Engineer, member, IEEE

[[Page 28321]]

    Aaron Lambers, Boise, Idaho; System Administrator, Manpower 
Professional
    Aaron Sakowski, Cleveland, OH; Information Management, n/a
    Aaron Swartz, Highland park, IL; Lead Developer, The Plex 
Project
    Aaron Tillema, La Crosse, WI; Student, University of 
Wisconsin--;La Crosse
    Aaron Zinman, San Diego, CA; Student, University of California 
at San Diego
    Ab Kuenzli, North Pole, Alaska; Technology Manager, Lathrop High 
School, Fairbanks
    North Star Borough
    Abraham Ingersoll, Venice, CA; Programmer, Dajoba
    Adam A. Turetzky, Evanston, IL; Technical Support Consultant, 
Northwestern University
    Adam Bowker, Dover, NH; Student, University of New Hampshire
    Adam Bregenzer, Atlanta, GA; Vice President Of Information 
Technology,
    WebEntrada
    Adam Burrill, Seattle, WA; Technology Consultant, n/a
    Adam Clayton, Norwich, VT; Software Engineer,
    Adam Hitchcock, Ann Arbor, MI; Software Programer, n/a
    Adam Houghton, San Antonio, TX; Student, Trinity University
    Adam Johnson, Decatur, GA; Graduate Student, Georgia Institute 
of Technology
    Adam Jones, Fishers, Indiana; Software Engineer, Flexware 
Integration
    Adam Kessel, Somerville, MA; Student, Northeastern University 
School of Law
    Adam K. Keys, Dallas, Texas; Student, Southern Methodist 
University
    Adrian P. Sinnott, Huntington Station, NY; Former campus rep, 
Apple
    AE Mustain, Oakland, CA; Software Engineer & Manager, 
NextBus Information Systems
    Afsheen Bigdeli, Boston, MA; n/a
    Agris Taurins, Lincoln, NE; Unix Administrator, n/a
    Ahmad Baitalmal, Issaquah, WA; IT, Etelos Inc.
    Akkana Peck, San Jose, CA; Software Engineer, Netscape
    Alain James Bertrand II, West Valley, Utah; PC Technician, 
Alorica Inc.
    Alan J. Miller, Des Plaines, IL; Senior Engineer, The Standard 
Register Company
    Alan Overton, Marietta, Georgia; Web content developer, Center 
for Assistive
    Technology and Environmental
    Access, Georgia Tech
    Alan Shoemaker, Moreno Valley, California; Customer Service 
Technician,
    MandrakeSoft Inc.
    Alan V. Shackelford, Baltimore, Maryland; Senior Systems 
Software Engineer,
    The Johns Hopkins University
    Alan Wilkinson, Burke, VA; President, Results Computing 
Corporation
    Alan Zabaro, Glendale, CA; Programmer Analyst, Los Angeles 
County
    Al Cuenco, Portland, OR; System Administrator, NW Natural
    Aleksandr Drel, Brooklyn, NY; Developer, Keane
    Alena Waller, Georgetown, KY; Concerned Citizen,
    Alex, Aaarons, Indianapolis; System Administrator, Star News
    Alex Alegado, Rosemead, CA; President, ThoughtShop Networks
    Alexander Johns, Montgomery Village, MD; Programmer, n/a
    Alexander Kazura, Pittsfield, Massachusetts; Head Technician, n/
a
    Alexander M. Johnson, Santa Cruz, CA; Principal, Arete Systems
    Alexander Shvedoff, San Francisco, California; CO0 & 
Programmer,
    Isomorphic Software
    Alexander Stefansky, Santa Cruz, CA; Consultant,
    Alexander Wallace, Cedar Park, Texas; Lead Developer / Network 
Administrator, RW
    Alex Belits, Denver CO; CTO, Belits Computer Systems
    Alex Deucher, Arlington, Virginia; Sales Engineer, n/a
    Alex Johnson, Cincinnati, Ohio; Freelance Video Producer, n/a
    Alex Nicksay, New York, New York; Student, Computer Science and 
Film Studies, Columbia University
    Alex Weissman, Johnston, RI; Artist and Animator, Worldwinner
    Alfredo Azpiazu, Sarasota, Florida; Student, New College of 
Florida
    Ali Bawany, Austin, TX; n/a
    Alice Schafer, Acton, Ma; Senior Database Analyst, MITRE Corp
    Alison Chaiken, Fremont, CA; Chief Scientist, WSRCC
    Alison N. Smith, Austin, Texas; n/a
    Allan T. Walters, Philadelphia, PA; Systems Administrator, 
Note.com
    Allen Cook, Bowling Green, KY; Student, Western Kentucky 
University
    Allen D. Malony, Eugene, Oregon; Associate Professor, University 
of Oregon
    Allen J. Lopp, Lanesvile, IN; Owner/Consultant, 21st Century 
Cyber
    Allen S. Rout, Gainesville, Florida; Systems Programmer, 
University of Florida
    Allen W. Goetsch, Chicago, IL; Consultant, Jen-Tech Steele
    Alon Harpaz, Ashland, MA; Electrical Engineer, Dover Instrument 
Corporation
    Alyssa Canann, Costa Mesa, California; Owner, For the Love of 
Peat
    Amber Jain, Los Angeles, CA; Graduate Student, USC
    Andrea J Cameron, Los Angeles, CA; Developer, Avacast
    Andre Valente, Los Angeles, CA; Consultant, n/a
    Andre Vrignaud, San Jose, CA; n/a
    Andrew Barak Sweger, Seattle, WA; Software Developer, n/a
    Andrew Bezella, Chicago, IL; n/a
    Andrew Biddle, Lake Forest Park, WA; Network Engineer, AT&T 
Wireless Services
    Andrew C. Bertola, Sunnyvale, CA; Owner, drewb.com
    Andrew Chaplin, Buffalo, NY; Lead Operator/System Admin I, 
Canisius College
    Andrew Chen, East Lansing, MI; Graduate Assistant, Michigan 
State University
    Andrew Deckowitz, Buffalo Grove, Illinois; Systems Engineer, n/a
    Andrew D. Hwang, Worcester, MA; Professor, College of the Holy 
Cross
    Andrew Gray, Las Vegas, NV; Systems Administrator, University of 
Nevada
    Andrew Helsley, Calabasas, CA; Student, University of 
California, Riverside
    Andrew Hermetz, Dayton, Ohio; TechnoShaman, Humanadyne
    Andrew Hon, Berkeley, California; Student, University of 
California Berkeley
    Andrew James Alan Welty, Twentynine Palms, CA; n/a
    Andrew J. Murren, Mendham, NJ; Partner, Omni-Tech Solutions
    Andrew Klenzak, Atlanta, GA; Embedded Software Engineer, CIENA 
Corporation
    Andrew Klopp, Denver, CO; HelpDesk Supervisor, Ultimate 
Electronics
    Andrew Lenharth, Everett, WA; Information Technology Systems 
Specialist, State of Washington
    Andrew Longton, Rockville, M/D; President, Metamark Corporation
    Andrew Lubbers, Phoenix, AZ; Software Engineer, Helm Software
    Andrew Lundberg, Baltimore, Maryland; Staff Engineer, Equinox 
Corporation
    Andrew M. Page, Ithaca, NY; Media Assistant, Cornell University
    Andrew O'Brien, Wyomissing, PA; Sattelite Communications 
Instructor, NATO
    Andrew Park, Cleveland, Ohio; Systems Analyst, Federal Reserve 
Bank of Cleveland
    Andrew Pavelchek, San Diego, CA; Sr. Electrical Engineer, Maxima 
Corporation
    Andrew Pfiffer, Aloha, OR; Software Developer, Citizen of USA
    Andrew Spencer, Salt Lake City, UT; Software Engineer, falling 
blue
    Andrew S. Zbikowski, Minneapolis, MN; Information Technology 
Specalist, University of Minnesota Computer
    Science Dept
    Andrew Valkanas, Chicago, IL; Student, NEIU
    Andy Barclay, Concord, California; Solaris Systems Architect, 
Digital Island
    Andy Catalano, College Place, WA; Student, Walla Walla College
    Andy Chin, Los Angeles, CA; Student, University of California, 
Los Angeles
    Andy Cristina, New Orleans, Louisiana; Student, University of 
New Orleans, Penta Corporation
    Andy Mroczkowski, Philadelphia, PA; , Drexel University
    Andy Wismar, Cleveland, Ohio; Internet Application Developer, 
Weatherhead School of Management
    Angus Crome, Maryville, IL; Systems Administrator, n/a
    Anthony Britton, Fairfax, Virginia; Network Engineer, N/A
    Anthony Lastowka, Philadelphia, PA; NT/W2K/Linux Administrator, 
University of Pennsylvania Medical School
    Anthony L Borchers, Coconut Creek, Florida; Senior Engineer, 
PowerVision Corporation
    Anthony McDowell, MS State University, MS; Student, Mississippi 
State University
    Anthony Spears, Ames, Iowa; Software Developer, Universal 
Systems and Technologies (UNITECH)
    Antone Roundy, Spanish Fork, UT; Manager, Mouken
    Antonio Arredondo, San Jose, CA; Student, n/a
    Ara Aroyan, Davis, California; CSE Student, UC Davis
    Aric Stewart, Minneapolis, MN; Programmer, CodeWeavers

[[Page 28322]]

    Ari Turetzky, Normal, IL; Development Team Lead, Illinois State 
University
    Aron S. Spencer, Irvine, CA; Ph.D. Candidate: Graduate School of 
Management, UC Irvine
    Arrigo Benedetti, Los Angeles, CA; Staff scientist, Caltech
    Arthur Corliss, Anchorage, AK; Independent Programmer, n/a
    Arthur Michaels, Parsippany, NJ; Software Engineer/Technologist, 
Lucent Technologies
    Art Johnson, Los Angeles, California; Member lula.org, 
linuxatlax.org, CSC-SERC
    Artur Kedzierski, Walnut, CA; Graduate Student, University of 
California
    Ashley M. Kirchner, Boulder, Colorado; System Administrator, 
Photo Craft Laboratories, Inc.
    Athur Abraham, Oakland, CA; Senior Software Engineer, A-Squared 
Systems Group
    Attila Mate, New York, NY; Professor of Mathematics, Brooklyn 
College of CUNY
    Audrey Lee, Princeton, New Jersey; Graduate Student (PhD program 
in Electrical Engineering), Princeton University
    Aurangzeb M. Agha, San Francisco, CA; President and CEO, Missing 
Link Technology Partners
    Austin Schutz, Portland, OR; Sr. Network Engineer, Global 
Crossing
    Barak A. Pearlmutter, Albuquerque, N-M; Professor, University of 
New Mexico
    Barrett Sylvies, Woodland Hills, CA; Field Service Technician, 
n/a
    Barrington King, Washington, DC; Co-Founder, Wyrdwright
    Barry E. Tolnas, Olympia, WA; Adjunct Faculty, The Evergreen 
State College
    Barry Rountree, San Diego, CA; Software Engineer, Freelance
    Barry Wilson, Beaverton, OR; Software Engineer, n/a
    Baxter Michael Gilley, Chester, VA; Student, ECPI Technical 
College
    B. Charles Reynolds, Seward, Alaska; Independant Business Owner, 
Unicity Network
    Benjamin C. Kite, Santa Cruz, CA; n/a
    Benjamin Cressey, Chapel Hill, NC; Systems Architect, n/a
    Benjamin Gilbert, Pittsburgh, PA; Engineering student, Carnegie 
Mellon University
    Benjamin J. Liberman, Santa Fe, NM; Programmer/Analyst, Accent 
Optical Technologies
    Benjamin Moore, Marina del Rey, California; Programmer Analyst 
IV, USC Institute for Creative Technologies
    Benjamin Morse, Somerville, Massachusetts; Student, MIT
    Benjamin Moser, Floyds Knobs, Indiana; System Engineer, Kimball 
International
    Benjamin R. Eastwood, Albany, CA; IT Manager, wilweb.com
    Benjamin Russo, Herndon, Virginia; UNIX Systems Administrator, 
Currently Unemployed
    Benjamin W Pearre, Cambridge, MA; Research Associate, MIT
    Ben Messinger, Kennewick, WA; Network Systems Administrator, HFG
    Bennett Neale, Santa Monica, California; Software Engineer, 
Edmunds.com
    Ben Penning, San Diego, CA; Web Programmer, Einstein Industries
    Ben Wilson, Louisville, KY; Systems Analyst/Designer, Corvus 
Digital Solutions
    Beth A. Roe, Sarasota, Florida; Financial Controller & 
Consumer
    Bevan C. Bennett, Pasadena, California; Manager of Information 
Technology, n/a
    Bill Abbas, Sanford, FL; Senior Systems Architect, CRM Solutions
    Bill Bennett, Gallatin, Tennessee; President, Double B 
Consulting
    Bill Bisho, Colorado Springs, Colorado; V.P. Information 
Technology, H.I.S. Financial Services Corp.
    Bill Brody, Troy, Michigan; Electrical Engineer, n/a
    Bill Bryan, Paso Robles, California; Owner, Paralegal Services
    Bill Cunningham, Sparks, NV; Technical Lead, Bally Gaming and 
Systems
    Bill Denney, LaGrange, GA; College Student, Georgia Institute of 
Technology
    Bill Ezell, Manchester, NH; Sr. Software Architect, Granite 
Systems
    Bill Glover, Amarillo, TX; Enterprise Java Architect, n/a
    Bill Huey, San Diego, CA; Software Engineer
    Bill Jetzer, Madison, WI; Software Developer, SVA Consulting
    Bill Sconce, Milford, NH; President, In Spec, Inc.
    Bill Toole, New York, NY; self employed, n/a
    Binu Parayil, Ocean, NJ; System Engineer, n/a
    Blake Huber, Austin, TX; Director of Eng. Operations, 
Coremetrics
    Blake Wesley Thomas, Chicago, Illinois; Student, Senior Tutor, 
CS, University of Chicago
    Bob Alvarez, Chicago, IL; Human Factors Engineer/Software 
Engineer, bobalvarez.net
    Bob Armstrong, Conway, MA; Consulting Engineer, Compaq
    Bobby Hays, Lawrenceville, GA; Graphic Systems Developer, 
Network Communications, Inc.
    Bob Dehnhardt, Reno, NV; n/a
    Bob Hardy, Santa Clara, CA; UNIX Sysadmin, Sanmina-SCI Corp.
    Bob Horvath, Arlington Heights, IL; Software Engineer, n/a
    Bob Mileti, Torrington, CT; President, Trlby Innovative
    Bob Nicksic, Chicago, IL; Technical Product Manager, Peter 
Martin Associates
    Bob Pendleton, Round Rock, Texas; Owner, Gameprogrammer.com
    Bob Stephan, Pebble Beach, California; Owner/Consultant, Moby 
Disk
    Boyce Fullmer, Plano, TX; Systems Analyst, Flash Computers and 
Networks
    Brad Baylor, Columbus, OH; Supervisor, Qwest
    Bradford Carpenter, Camino, CA; Database Programmer, 
Construction NewsNet
    Brad Garcia, Freedom, PA; Senior Software Engineer, n/a
    Brad Harvell, Chandler, AZ; Senior Engineer, n/a
    Bradley Greger, Los Angeles, CA; Neuroscientist, Caltech
    Bradley J. Christensen, Berrien Springs, Michigan; Oracle 
Database Administrator, Andrews University
    Bradley M. Alexander, Amissville, VA; Security Engineer, 
VeriSign (acting on my own accord...)
    Bradley R. Stone, Columbus, Ohio; Graduate Student, The Ohio 
State University
    Brad Midgley, Salt Lake, Utah; Developer, n/a
    Brad Myers, Bridgeport, WV; Senior Systems Administrator, n/a
    Brad O'Hearne, Irvine, CA; Software Engineer
    Brad Showalter, Richmond, VA; Information Security Specialist, 
Federal Reserve Bank--; Richmond
    Brad Smith, Savannah, GA; Computer Engineering Major, Georgia 
Institute of Technology
    Brandi Weed, Davis, CA; Consultant
    Brandon Low, Chicago, Illinois; Graphics and Imaging Specialist, 
Copytec, Inc.
    Brandon M. Reynolds, Akron, Ohio; Systems Engineer, Commercial 
Timesharing Inc. [http://www.comtime.com/]
    Brandon Neill, Westminster, CO; Technical Support Engineer, Sun 
Microsystems
    Brandon Stephens, Huntsville, AL; Network Security 
Administrator, CFD Research Corp
    Brendan Billingsley, Boulder, Colorado; Student, University of 
Colorado at Boulder
    Brendan Bouffler, New York, New York; Global Tech Support 
Manager, Proximity Corp
    Brendan Byrd, Louisville, KY; Web Programmer, Resonator Software
    Brent Bryan, Friday Harbor, Washington; Student, Yale University
    Brent Chivers, Arlington, VA; Systems Administrator, Mitretek 
Systems
    Brent Geske, Vancouver, WA; Software Engineer, self
    Brent Laminack, Atlanta, GA; Director of e-commerce, Enweben, 
LLC.
    Brent Pickert, Scottsdale, Arizona; Student, Arizona State 
University
    Brett Barton, Dublin, OH; Pricing Coordinator, Ashland 
Distribution Company
    Brett Carter, Portland, OR; Web Engineer, Kavi
    Brett Coon, Milpitas, CA; Technical Director, n/a
    Brett Johnson, Windsor, CO; Software Engineer, n/a
    Brett Kislin, Pompano Beach, FL; Pres., Kislin Consulting
    Brett Lorenzen, Alexandria, VA; Consultant and Developer, n/a
    Brett Miller, Nashville, TN; Systems Administrator, n/a
    Brett Peckinpaugh, Denver, Colorado; System Support Specialist, 
Avaya
    Brett Presnell, Gainesville, Florida; Associate Professor, 
University of Florida
    Brett Sanger, Williamsburg, VA; Web Programmer, n/a
    Brett Schwarz, North Bend, WA; Lead Network Engineer, n/a
    Brian Allemana, Chicago, IL; Web Developer/Consultant, n/a
    Brian A. Redding, Champaign, IL; Software Engineer, n/a
    Brian Beveridge, Oakland, CA; General Partner, Paradigm Three
    Brian Casten, Elgin, IL; Student, Columbia College
    Brian Chiko, Saratoga, California; VP Marketing, Vpacket 
Communications

[[Page 28323]]

    Brian Cleverly, Sacramento, CA; ex Software Developer and now 
angry captive Microsft user., Anzam Yacht Refurbishing
    Brian Davis, Beaverton, OR; Unix Systems Administrator, n/a
    Brian Dellert, Prior Lake, MN; Software Developer, Independent 
Consultant
    Brian DeRosa, Elk Grove Village, IL; Principal, The Net Squad
    Brian D. Klar, Dayton, OH; VTC Engineer, OTS / WPAFB
    Brian Fahrlander, Evansville, Indiana; Owner, Kamakiriad.com
    Brian Feathers, Arlington, VA; Consultant, n/a
    Brian Filipiak, Ypsilanti, MI; Grant Associate, Eastern Michigan 
University
    Brian Grossman, Fort Collins, Colorado; President, SoftHome
    Brian Hall, Colorado Springs, CO; Software Engineer, Northrop 
Grumman
    Brian Hellman, Osceola, IN; IT manager, 1st Source Bank
    Brian Horton, Pflugerville, TX; n/a
    Brian J. Brondel, Springfield, MO; Student, Southwest Missouri 
State University
    Brian Johnson, Durham, NC; IT Analyst, Duke University
    Brian Kelly, Chicago, Illinois; Student, DePaul University
    Brian Koppe, Buffalo Grove, IL; Undergraduate Student, DePaul 
University
    Brian LaMere, San Diego, California; UNIX Sysadmin, Diversa
    Brian Lau, Huntington Beach, CA; Software Engineer, Gordian Inc.
    Brian Martin, Champaign, IL; Webmaster, Farm Credit Services
    Brian Mason, Hinesburg, Vermont; Web Developer, Image Mason 
Design
    Brian McFadden, Altamonte Springs, Florida; Device Driver 
Engineer, CDP
    Brian M. Fisher, Chapel Hill, NC; Graduate Student in Nuclear 
Physics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
    Brian M. Schkerke, St. Louis, MO; Vice President Information 
Systems, NETCO
    Brian Olsen, Aurora, Colorado; Senior Software Developer, 
Pixxures Inc.
    Brian P. Bilbrey, Sunnyvale, CA; IT/Web/Consultant/Author, Orb 
Designs
    Brian Redfern, Los Angeles, CA; Linux Programmer
    Brian Reichert, Bethlehem, PA; Systems Engineer, n/a
    Brian R. Furry, Hackettstown, New Jersey; Mathematics and 
Computer Science Teacher, Watchung Hills Regional High School
    Brian R. Swan, Elgin, Illinois; internetwork Solutions Engineer, 
ThruPoint
    Brian Strand, Oakland, California; CTO, Switch Management
    Brian Teague, Houston, TX; Computer Science student, Rice 
University
    Brian Templeton, Starkville, MS; Student, Mississippi State 
University
    Brian T. Johnson, Bainbridge, GA; Electronics Calibration 
Specialist, USN
    Brian Vincent, Breckenridge, CO; Telecom Engineer, Copper 
Mountain
    Brian Weir, Cleveland, Ohio; student, Hiram College
    Bridgette Ruggles, Waldwick, NJ; Computer Support/Web Designer, 
Cline
    Brien Dieterle, Chandler, Arizona; Computer Technician, Maricopa 
Community Colleges
    Brock Organ, Chapel Hill, NC; QA Engineer, Red Hat Inc
    Bruce Armstrong, Orem, Utah; Software Quality Assurance 
Engineer, NTT/Verio (www.verio.net
    Bruce Buckelew Oakland, CA; Director, Oakland Technnology 
Exchange--;West
    Bruce E. Birch San Diego, California; Information Systems 
Administrator, Biostruct
    Bruce Hamilton Redondo Beach, CA; n/a
    Bruce Horn, Mammoth Lakes, CA; Chief Technical Officer, 
Marketocracy, Inc.
    Bruce McCready, Baltimore, FiD; Software Engineer, 
Advertising.com
    Bruce McFarland, wilmington, DE; President, Absolute Systems Inc
    Bruce Rakes, Atlanta, GA; CTO, Zmed
    Bruce Rogovin, Cincinnati, Ohio; President, Bruce J. Rogovin DMD
    Bruce Timberlake, Carlsbad, CA; Technology Engineer, Sun 
Microsystems
    Bruce W. Calkins, Wales, MA; n/a
    Bryan Carpenter, Loveland, CO; Software Development Engineer, 
Agilent Technologies
    Bryan Durkee, Oshkosh, WI; NT Server Manager, Winnefox Library 
System
    Bryan Housel, Philadelphia, PA; Software Engineer, CIM of 
Philadelphia
    Bryan Newman, Seattle, WA; Programmer, n/a
    Bryan Waterman, Monterey, CA; Lieutenant, DOD
    Bryce Schober, Seattle, WA; Software Engineer, Dynon Development
    Buckley Collum, Los Angeles, CA; Partner, MenaceFX
    Buford Lemon, Midland, MI; Dr., A Big Chemical Company
    Caleb Mardini, Bellevue, WA; Real Estate Coordinator, 
WhyNotOwn.com
    Calvin Harrigan, Atlanta, Georgia; Software Engineer, n/a
    Calvin S. Taylor Jr., Tigard, Oregon; President, Sandforge 
Engineering
    Canyon Russell, Tulsa, Oklahoma; Consultant, n/a
    Carl Alexander, Watertown, Massachusetts; Senior Systems and 
Network Administrator, Technical Education Research Center
    Carl Christian Brink, Portland, OR; CTO, ONSITE! Technology
    Carl Drake Jr, Chillicothe, OH; Commander USN(Ret)
    Carl Friedberg, New York, NY; President and CEO, Comet and 
Company
    Carlie J. Coats, Jr., Ph.D., Chapel Hill, NC; Mathematician/
Analyst, MCNC-Environmental Modeling Center
    Carl J. Youngdahl, Ph.D., Evanston, IL; Software/Content 
Developer, n/a
    Carl Klutzke, Indianapolis, IN; Software Developer, Covance Inc.
    Carl M. Holmberg, Kihei, HI; Systems Analyst, AFRL--;Maui 
High Performance Computing center
    Carl M. Keil, Portland, OR; Multimedia Producer, Portland 
Community College
    Carl Mueller, Seattle, WA; Software Engineer, Nintendo
    Carlos Eberhardt, White Bear Twp, MN; Consultant / Software 
Engineer, n/a
    Carlos Santellanes, Montebello, California; Graphic Designer, 
Freelance
    Carl Spangenberger, Wyoming, Michigan; Software Engineer, n/a
    Carl Youngblood, Orem, Utah; Software Engineer, n/a
    Caroline Lambert, Palo Alto, CA; IT Infrastructure Manager, 
Agilent Technologies
    Carolyn Cooper, Princeton, NJ; Computer Science graduate 
student, Johns Hopkins University
    Carroll Grigsby, Raleigh, NC; Retired, n/a
    Cary Roys, Aurora, IL; Resnet Consultant, North Central College
    Case Matthew Wiedner, Arlington Heights, Illinois; Network 
Administrator, American Telephone and Telegraph
    Casey Gordon, Athens, Georgia; Web Administrator, College of 
Family & Consumer Sciences
    Casey Hutchinson, Santa Cruz, CA; Network Administrator, Nadel 
Phelan, Inc.
    Catherine Jenkins, Cambridge, MA; Student, MIT
    C. Brandon Forehand, Pflugerville, TX; Software Developer, n/a
    Cerrise Weiblen, Louisville, Colorado; Freelance XA, XA Business 
Services
    Chadd Horanburg, Ferndale, MI; Security Engineer, Internet 
Security Systems
    Chad Kavanaugh Bisk, Reston, Va; Senior Consultant, Braun 
Consulting
    Chad Kay, Milwaukie, Oregon; n/a
    Chad Margetts, West Jordan, Utah; Independent Consultant, Ron 
Allen Consulting Services
    Chad Miller, Valdosta, GA; Developer, Debian
    Chad Vogelsong, Carlisle, PA; Student, The Pennsylvania State 
University
    Charles B. Cranston, Burtonsville, Maryland; Staff computer 
programmer, University of Maryland at College Park
    Charles Borner, Lisle, IL; Owner, EvilNET.net
    Charles D. Galler Jr., Houston, Tx; System Admin, C2C Fiber
    Charles D. McJilton, Laporte, Colorado; System Administrator, 
JYM Information Systems LLC
    Charles Durst, Arlington, MA; Senior Software Engineer, n/a
    Charles E Chandler III, New Orleans, LA; Computer Technician, 
Computer Source, LLC.
    Charles E Mason IV, Tallahassee, FL; Student, Florida State 
University
    Charles E. Oesterle, Plymouth, Michigan; programmer, CEO Image 
Systems
    Charles F. McKnight, Fayetteville, Arkansas; PC/LAN Specialist, 
Mercy Health Systems--; NWA
    Charles Forsythe, Dallas, TX; Enterprise Systems Consultant, 
Texas Home Health of America
    Charles F. Wilkins, III, Houston, TX; Systems Analyst, Cullen 
College of Engineering
    Charles Hasegawa, Mesa, Arizona; Software Engineer, Cottonwood 
Technology Group
    Charles Hinson, King of Prussia, PA; Senior Engineer, Avercom
    Charles Hopkins, Foothill Ranch, CA; Systems Analyst, Boeing 
Satellite Systems
    Charles Hurlocker, Renton, WA; Retired Software Engineer
    Charles Jenkins, Oak Ridge, Tennessee; Software Developer, n/a
    Charles Kendrick, San Francisco, CA; Co-Founder and Chief 
Technology Officer, Isomorphic Software

[[Page 28324]]

    Charles Kerr, Oklahoma City, OK; Senior Software Engineer, 
University of Oklahoma
    Charles Krug Smart, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Undergraduate 
Student, Carnegie Mellon University
    Charles Kuske, New York, NY; Engineer, Metropolis DVD
    Charles L. Hethcoat III, Houston, Texas; Concerned citizen, n/a
    Charles Mattice, Stone Mountain, GA; Technical Director, Permite 
Corporation
    Charles Mercer, Wichita, KS; Lead Analyst, Cessna Aircraft 
Company
    Charles Noble Baker, Van Nuys, California; Systems 
Administrator, Solar Webb, INC
    Charles ``Pat'' Kelley, Norcross, Georgia; Firmware 
Engineer, Enrev Power Solutions
    Charles R. Fry, Sunnyvale, California; Computer Scientist, n/a
    Charles Steinkuehler, Topeka, KS; Electronics Engineer, NewTek 
Partners; member, Linux
    Router Project
    Charles Wiltgen, San Diego, CA; Product Manager, PacketVideo
    Charlie Eidem, Rohnert Park, California; Student, Sonoma State 
University
    Charlie Kilian, Wamego, KS; Director of Software Development, 
Aphelion Studios
    Charlie Zender, Irvine, CA; Professor of Earth System Science, 
University of California at Irvine
    Chase Caster, Ames, IA; Student, Iowa State University
    Chase Grund, Dayton, Ohio; Web Administrator, LOGTEC, Inc.
    Chester Hoster, Dallas, TX; IT Network Engineer, n/a
    Chip Hart, Burlington, VT; Director of Marketing, Physician's 
Computer Company (PCC)
    Chip Witt, Santa Rosa, CA; Sr. Network Administrator, Westwave 
Communications, Inc.
    Chris A. Miller, Omaha, NE; Application Architect, Withheld out 
of fear
    Chris Armstrong, Sterling, VA; Product Engineer, America Online, 
Inc.
    Chris Bare, Fort Lauderdale, FL; Technical Director, Metro Link 
Incorporated
    Chris Barr, Wayland, MA; Software Engineer, Strider Software, 
Inc.
    Chris Beattie, Columbia, South Carolina; System Administrator, 
Independent
    Chris Bopp, Honolulu, HI; System Administrator, Travel Hawaii
    Chris Carlin, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Student, Texas A&M 
University
    Chris Davis, Minneaplois, MN; Software Developer, KRS Software
    Chris Dawson, Portland, Oregon; Software Engineer, Contractor
    Chris Dos, Highlands Ranch, CO; President, Open Innovations
    Chris Gamble, Grapvine, Texas; Developer, CPB Inc
    Chris Gebhardt, State College, PA; Student of Computer 
Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University
    Chris Hadley, Memphis, TN; System Engineer, Infuturo
    Chris Hamilton, Anchorage, AK; IT Contractor, C&S Management 
Associates
    Chris Harmon, Copley, Ohio; Student, University of Akron
    Chris Holland, Costa Mesa, CA; Programmer, Contractor's Source 
Inc
    Chris Hruska, Ithaca, NY; Graduate student, Cornell University
    Chris Humphres, Durham, North Carolina; Software Engineer, n/a
    Chris Lea, Los Angeles, CA; Senior Technologist, Lucid Designs
    Chris Loendorf, Sacaton, Arizona; Project Director, Gila River 
Indian Community Cultural Resource
    Chris March, Buffalo, NY; Network Administrator, Prep 
Incorporated
    Chris Marckel, Minneapolis, Mn; QA analyst, IBMGS
    Chris Mccraw, Denver, CO; unix consultant, independent
    Chris McGraw, Clark, SD; Information Systems Operator/
Maintainer, SDARNG
    Chris Monson, Provo, UT; Chief Architect, Orangatango
    Chris Rabkin, Naples, Florida; Internet Business Strategist, 
imageProjektions-DGL
    Chris Scheller, Palmdale, CA; Presidnet/Founder, Antelope Valley 
Linux Users Group
    Chris Sexton, Raleigh, NC; Student, North Carolina State 
University
    Chris Sutton, Seattle, WA; Software Engineer, iFloor.com
    Chris Telfer, West Lafayette, Indiana; Graduate Student, Purdue 
University
    Christian Greika, Atlanta, GA; Software Engineer, NCR 
Corporation
    Christian H=F61tje, San Jose, Texas; Lead Developer, Rackspace 
Managed Hosting
    Christian Schumann-Curtis, Denver, CO; R&D Manager, Pixxures
    Christian Walker, San Francisco, California; Software Developer, 
Ubiquitos Information
    Christine Eck, Columbia, FID; software engineer, n/a
    Christopher A. Baumbauer, Lafayette, IN; student, Purdue 
University
    Christopher A. Worth, Louisville, KY; Biomedical Engineer, Univ. 
of Louisville
    Christopher Caldwell, Woburn, Massachusetts; Chief Engineer, 
Interliant Corporation
    Christopher Corayer, Newton, MA; Network Engineer, ADE 
Corporation
    Christopher Elmquist, St. Paul, MN; Software Engineer, Elmquist 
Microsystems
    Christopher Fitch, Memphis, TN; Senior Software Engineer, n/a
    Christopher Foley, Atlanta, Georgia; Systems Engineer, Stevens 
Communications
    Christopher Holley, Durham, NC; Medical Student, Duke University 
Medical School
    Christopher J. Armstrong, Clinton, Pennsylvania; Web Developer, 
NOVA Chemicals
    Christopher J. Kucera, Green Bay, WI; Software Engineer, n/a
    Christopher Mende, Colorado Springs, Colorado; Systems Engineer, 
Raviant Networks
    Christopher Michael Werner, Brooklyn, New York; Student, SUNY 
Binghamton
    Christopher N. Lawrence, Oxford, MS; Computer Systems Manager, 
University of Mississippi
    Christopher O'Brien, Raleigh, North Carolina; Contracted 
Developer, CDI
    Christopher Palow, Miami, Florida; Student Computer Engineering, 
Carnegie Mellon University
    Christopher Park, Jacksonville, Florida; Software Developer, 
Independant
    Christopher Plummer, Flemington, NJ; Lotus Notes Administrator, 
Independent Contractor
    Christopher R. Wren, Cambridge, Massachusetts; Research 
Scientist, MERL
    Christopher Sean Morrison, Aberdeen, FID; Senior Software 
Engineer, U.S. Army Research Laboratory
    Christopher Smith, Los Angeles, California; Senior Technologist, 
Xdrive Technologies
    Christopher S. Swingley, Fairbanks, Alaska; Computer / Network 
Manager, University of Alaska Fairbanks
    Christopher Vargas, Arlington, VA; Web Publisher, HHMI
    Christopher Wallace, Austin, TX; System Architect, Dell Computer 
Corporation
    Christopher Weuve, Alexandria, VA; Senior Research Specialist, 
n/a
    Christopher Wolske, Gaithersburg, MD; Consultant, n/a
    Chris Turner, El Paso, TX; Graduate Student, UTEP
    Chris Watson, Wellington, KS; President, Open Systems Inc.
    Chris Wells, Lexington, KY; Software Engineer, rpcnet.com
    Chris Williamson, Wilmore, KY; Instructional Technology 
Assistant, Asbury College
    Chris Wingate, Fort Wayne, Indiana; Real Estate Investor, n/a
    Chris Worley, SLC, UT; Programmer, Liberate Technologies
    Chuck Messenger, Rochester, NY; Software engineer, self employed
    Chuck Moss, Manassas, VA; President, Complete Network Solutions
    C. J. Keist, Fort Collins, CO; UNIX admin, Colorado State 
University
    Clark N. Quinn, Walnut Creek, CA; Executive Director, OtterSurf 
Labs
    Claude Keswani, Boston, Massachusetts; Student, University of 
Massachusetts
    Claudia Santoro, Somerville, MA; Systems Architect, Elm Square 
Technologies
    Clay J. Claiborne, Jr., Los Angeles, California; President, 
Cosmos Engineering Company; Founder, lula.org
    Clayton S. Chan, Irvine, CA; Computer Technician, n/a
    Clif Cox, Eugene, OR; System administrator, OCFnet cliff Earle, 
Sunland, CA; n/a
    Clifton Leonard, Oklahoma City, OK; Systems Engineer, CACI
    C. Megan Larko, Laurel, FiD; Systems Administrator, NASA Goddard 
Space Flight Center
    C. Michael McCallum, Elk Grove, CA; Associate Professor of 
Chemistry, University of the Pacific
    Colin Dean, Volant, PA; Web Designer, Student, Freelance
    Colin Kinlund, Bristol, Vermont; Student, The Red Cedar School
    Colin Spencer, Norfolk, VA; Consultant, Independent
    Colin Steele, Charlottesville, VA; n/a
    Colleen Shannon, San Diego, California; Programmer/Analyst, 
CAIDA, San Diego Supercomputer Center, UCSD
    Collin Anderson, Osceola, IN; Student, Penn High School
    Conan Heiselt, Fremont, California; Systems Engineer, Kodak

[[Page 28325]]

    Connor Smith, New York, NY; Computer Support, Cline Davis & 
Mann
    Conrad Clark, Morgantown, WV; IT Consultant, Self Employed
    Cory McKinstry, Austin, TX; Field Engineer, Northrop Grumman 
Information Technology
    Coy T. Thorp, Vallejo, California; Network Systems 
Administrator, MDL Information Systems
    Craig Butcher, Chelsea, Michigan; Foreman, University of 
Michigan Plant AC Shop
    Craig I. Hagan, Seattle, Washington; Systems Engineer, n/a
    Craig R. Campbell, Everett, WA; Software Engineeer, Fluke 
Networks
    Craig Sparks, Overland Park, KS; Former CEO, NetGames USA 
(acquired by Microsoft)
    Craig Van Degrift, Los Angeles, CA; President, Kanji-Flash 
Softworks
    Craig Welch, Denver, Colorado; Systems Administrator, Consulting
    Craig Znamierowski, Charlton, MA; Network Engineer, GweepCo
    CR Jones, Walnut, MS; Systems Engineer, Consultant
    C. Scott Ananian, Cambridge, MA; PhD student, Massachusetts 
Institute of Technology
    Curt Cox, University City, MO; Programmer, n/a
    Curt Holmer, Sterling, VA; Chief Consultant, CIHolmer Consulting 
Inc., http://www.ciholmer.com
    Curtis Lisle, Orlando, FL; Visual Systems Scientist, SGI
    Curtis R. Danner, Batavia, IL; Tech Specialist, Fermilab
    Curtis Rey, Madison, Wisconsin; R.N.B.S.N., Saint Marys Hospital
    Curtis Rushing, Lake St. Louis, MO; President, Rushing 
Consulting Inc.
    Curtis Turner II, Central, South Carolina; Systems 
Administrator, Integrated Support Systems, Inc.
    Curtis Wood, Corpus Christi, Texas; System Administrator/
Architect, BlueDomino Hosting
    Curt Jacobson, Kalispell, MT; n/a
    Curt Pederson, Madison, Wisconsin; Software Engineer, Berbee
    Cushing Whitney, Hoboken, NJ; Information Security Consultant, 
n/a
    Cyril Bortolato, Campbell, CA; Staff Software Engineer, Adaptive 
Silicon
    Dagny Haug, Minneapolis, MN; Associate Program Director, 
University of Minnesota
    Dale Schoeck, Houston, TX; Concerned Citizen, Individual
    Dallas Legan, Downey, California; Member, linuxatlax.org
    Damian Cunniff, Harrington Park, NJ; Computer Science, Ramapo 
College of NJ
    Damon A. Brown, Alexandria, VA; Consultant, Booz  Allen 
 Hamilton
    Damon A. Schmidt, Brooklyn Center, PIN; PC Analyst/Intel Servers 
Support, Provell
    Damon Cann, Port Jefferson, New York; Ph.D. Student, SUNY at 
Stony Brook
    Damon Casantini, King of Prussia, PA; Computer Technician, n/a
    Damon C. Richardson, St. Louis, MO; Software Developer, Express 
Scripts
    Dana L. Parso, San Francisco, CA; Administrator, Santos & 
Urrutia
    Dan Berger, Chino Hills, CA; Software Engineer, n/a
    Dan Bidwa, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Multimedia Technologist, 
Carnegie Mellon University
    Dan Carrigan, Yellow Springs, OH; Librarian, Antioch College
    Dan Devine, Seattle, Washington; n/a
    Dane Johnson, Minneapolis, MN; Senior Systems Analyst, Supervalu
    Danial Hinshaw, Honolulu, Hawaii; Electrician, Federal Employee
    Danial Howard, Pocatello, ID; IT Programmer/Analyst, Idaho State 
University
    Daniel Boudrot, Lewisville, TX; SW Engineer, ForeLogic, LLC
    Daniel Bungert, State College, PA; Student, Pennsylvania State 
University
    Daniel Bunn, Bedford, Virginia; Talent Scout / Artist, EB Muzik
    Daniel E. Shown, St. Louis, MO; Administrative Secretary, Saint 
Louis University
    Daniel Fuhr, Topeka, KS; Intern, Kansas Department of Health and 
Environment
    Daniel Gryniewicz, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Software Engineer, 
Nexthop Technologies
    Daniel Helfman, Los Angeles, California; Systems Administrator, 
Jim Henson's Creature Shop
    Daniel Holdren, Albany, NY; System Administrator, SUNY Albany
    Daniel Hong, Redwood City, CA; Unemployed Graduate, n/a
    Daniel Kupka, Worcester, Massachusetts; PC Administrator, 
Framingham Heart Study
    Daniel Lake, Portland, Oregon; Electrical Engineer, Mentor 
Graphics
    Daniel Lee, San Mateo, CA; Senior Software Engineer, Entelos
    Daniel Lipofsky, San Rafael, CA; Senior Software Engineer, n/a
    Daniel Maas, Ithaca, NY; President, Maas Digital, LLC
    Daniel Martinelli, Worcester, Massachusetts; Webmaster, Cancer 
Detection and Prevention
    Daniel Paquette, Apalachin, NY; Software Engineer, n/a
    Daniel Paul Veditz, Ben Lomond, California; Software Engineer, 
Netscape
    Daniel Poston, Florence, SC; Computer Technician, N/A
    Daniel R. Gowans, Fort Collins, Colorado; Design Engineer, 
Agilent Technologies
    Daniel Rozinsky, Marlboro, New fork; President, Brainstorm 
Technology Associates
    Daniel Stringfield, Wayne, NJ; Site Supervisor, Arsenal Digital 
Solutions
    Daniel Stutzbach, Eugene, Oregon; Graduate Student, University 
of Oregon
    Daniel T. Drea, Salem, CT; Owner, Daniel T. Drea P&H
    Daniel W. Brown, Gloucester, MA; Senior Software Engineer, n/a
    Daniel W. Drake, Apex, NC; Vice President, Oak Grove Software
    Daniel Wolstenholme, Chandler, AZ; Software Engineer, Intel 
Corporation
    Daniel Wright, Redwood City, California; President, ComputerX
    Dan Marker, Kettering, OH; Technical Support Engineer, SGI
    Dan Milstein, Boston, MA; Consultant, n/a
    Dan Moore, Salt Lake City, Utah; Programmer, Sandstar Family 
Entertainment
    Danny Espinoza, Washington, DC; Senior Software Engineer, 
emotion
    Dan Reese, Spanish Fork, UT; Software Engineer, Clearstone 
Corporation
    Dan Speers, Morristown, NJ; Editor, The Naturist Journal
    Dan Trevino, San Antonio, TX; President, bluemagnet, llc
    Dan Wilder, Seattle, WA; Tech Manager, Specialized Systems 
Consultants
    Dan Wood, Alameda, CA; Founder, Karelia Software
    Darcelle Bleau, Los Angeles, california; Research 
Analyst--;IT, Major HMO
    Darcy James Argue, Boston, MA; Musician, n/a
    Darlene Wallach, San Jose, CA; Software Engineer, n/a
    Daron D. Fraley, Plainfield, IN; IT Manager, DCM Indiana
    Darren Hiebert, Madison, Alabama; Senior Software Engineer, 
XonTech
    Darren Nguyen, San Mateo, CA; System Administrator, Talaris Inc.
    Daryl Biberdorf, Carrollton, Texas; Database administrator, n/a
    Dave Blankenship, Boise, Idaho; Senior Software Engineer, n/a
    Dave Gardner, South Pasadena, CA; Network Administrator/Security 
Analyst, ExacTax Inc.
    Dave Greene, Albany, NY; Technical Support, n/a
    Dave Lyon, Sandy, Utah; Web Engineer, TeachStream
    Dave Mallery, Ramah, NM; Editorial Director (retired), 
Professional Press
    Dave Ruske, Sussex, WI; Sr. Software Engineer, Rockwell Software 
Inc.
    Dave Seltzer, Rochester, N-Y; Network Software Engineer, n/a
    Dave Serls, Littleton, CO; Software Engineer, n/a
    Dave Wreski, Upper Saddle River, NJ; Director, Guardian Digital, 
Inc.
    David A. Rogers, La Grange, Illinois; Senior Software Engineer, 
SPSS Inc.
    David B. Caplinger, Omaha, NE; Information Technology Manager, 
Meridian, Inc.
    David Beahm, Williamsport, PA; Programmer, Champion Parts
    David Bechberger, Bozeman, MT; Hardware/Software Engineer, n/a
    David Benfell, San Francisco, California; Systems Administrator, 
n/a
    David Bilton, Colchester, CT; n/a
    David Border, Bowling Green, Ohio; Assistant Professor, Bowling 
Green State University
    David B. Peterson, Palo Alto, CA; Systems Administrator, n/a
    David Buehler, Albuquerque, New Mexico; Graduate Student 
(Computer Science Ph.D. , University of New Mexico
    David Castro-Diephouse, Philadelphia, PA; Software Engineer, 
Retek
    David Chapman, Sonoma, CA; Software Tester, LucasArts 
Entertainment
    David C. Hill, Centennial, Colorado; Consumer
    David Christensen, Berkeley, CA; UC Berkeley
    David C. Johanson, Gaithersbutg, MD; Aviation Physiologist, US 
Navy
    David Clark, Simi Valley, CA; Software Engineer, Consultant

[[Page 28326]]

    David Cotton, Santa Cruz, CA; Systems Administrator, vortex4.net
    David C. Sloane, Boston, Massachusetts; Sr. Systems Admin., 
Vanderweil Facility Advisors
    David Dahl, Chicago, IL; President, ddahl.com
    David Daniel, Lyons, CO; Advisory Engineer, Storage Technology 
Corp.
    David Diplock, San Diego, California; Software Engineer, 
Peregrine Systems
    David Dittrich, Seattle, Washington; Member, The Honeynet 
Project
    David D. Lewis, Chicago, IL; Independent Consultant
    David Dolinar, Provo, Utah; Software Developer, n/a
    Davide Libenzi, Beaverton, OR; Sr Software Engineer, NAI/McAfee
    David Ford, Meriden, CT; Blue Labs Software
    David F. Williams, Tulsa, Oklahoma; Network Administrator, 
Onbravo of Tulsa
    David Gabler, Atascadero, CA; Network and Systems Security 
Engineer, n/a
    David Gessel, Oakland, CA; Engineer, Black Rose Technology
    David Goodwin, Sunnyvale, CA; Software Engineer, Tensilica
    David Graser, Port Neches, Texas; Process Operator, Huntsman 
Corp.
    David Greenberg, Highland Park, IL; President, David Data
    David Hamilton, Nashville, Tennessee; Technical Consultant, n/a
    David Hartwell Clements, Golden, CO; Math/CS Student, Colorado 
School of Mines
    David Henning, Montgomery village, MD; Senior Security Engineer, 
CACI
    David Hershberger, Pittsburgh, PA; Ph.D. student, Carnegie 
Mellon University
    David HM Spector, Huntington, NY; President and CEO, DropZone 
Networks
    David Hudson, Cerritos, CA; Technologist, The Capital Group, 
Inc.
    David Hutchens III, Largo, FL; Operations Support Technician, n/
a
    David James Burneff, Columbus, Ohio; Developer, n/a
    David J. Carlson, Farmington, Utah; Airline Pilot (Retired)
    David Lance Smith, Newnan, Georgia; Owner/ CEO, smithSyndicate
    David Lesher, Wheaton, MID; Engineer,
    David L. Gantose, Cleveland, OH; Software Engineer, n/a
    David L. Williams, San Diego, CA; Sr. Software Engineer, 
Stellcom
    David Mandala, Phoenix AZ; President, THEM Productions
    David Marsh, Palmdale, CA; Network Engineer, Medical Research 
Products
    David May, Houston, TX; Senior Analyst, Dow Chemical
    David McCuskey, Portland, Oregon; Owner, McCuskey Consulting
    David Medinets, Ftanders, NJ; President, Eclectic Consulting
    David Merrill, Byfield, MA; Software Engineering Consultant, 
Merrill SCM Consulting
    David Mestel, St. Louis, Missouri; Systems Analyst, Free-
Source.com
    David M. Hull, Menlo Park, CA; Member of Technical Staff, TIBCO 
Software, Inc
    David Minor, Reston, Virginia; System Architecht, Orbotech Inc.
    David Morgan, Los Angeles, CA; Professor of CS, Santa Monica 
College, Los Angeles City College, UCLA Extension
    David Neu, West Lafayette, Indiana; Computing Center Consultant, 
Purdue University
    David Newman, Naperville, Illinois; Principle Software Engineer, 
Private Citizen
    David Noonan, Atlanta, GA; Network Engineer, n/a
    David O. Blanchard, Ph.D., Flagstaff, Arizona; Atmospheric 
Scientist, n/a
    David O'Brien, Alameda, CA; Computer Engineer, Consultant
    David Pearson, Walnut Creek, CA; Attorney, Law Offices of David 
S. Pearson
    David Polenychko, Troy, Michigan; Network Administrator, ACE 
Controls
    David Pool, Sunland, California; Software Developer, n/a
    David R Dick, Nashua, NH; President, Software Innovations
    David R. Roth, Portland, OR; Systems Analyst, Bureau of Labor 
and Industries, State of Oregon
    David Rush (US Citizen/Expatriate), Dunlavin, Republic of 
Ireland; Principal Engineer,
    AOL Technologies/Dublin
    David Rysdam, Milford, NH; Software Engineer, n/a
    David S. Goldberg, Belmont, MA; IT Manager, n/a
    David Small, Kent, OH; Computer Science Major, Kent State 
University
    David Smith, Kalamazoo, MI; Director of Development, Zooropa 
Design
    David Smith, Morgantown, West Virginia; Systems and Network 
Administrator, West Virginia University
    David Sowder, Cleburne, Texas; Systems Administrator, 
Southwestern Adventist University
    David S. Roland, Denver, Colorado; President, Advanced 
Intelligent Networks Corporation
    David Stair, Asheville, NC; College Student, Member, ACM
    David Sullivan, Denver, CO; Associate Professor, MSCD
    David Walker, Pescadero, Ca; QA Manager, Rocket Network
    David White, Stockbridge, Georgia; Computer User, Private 
Individual
    David Wiley, Ph.D., Logan, Utah; Assistant Professor, Utah State 
University
    David Wilk, Gallup, NM; Systems Administrator, Community 
Internet Access
    David Witherspoon, Salt Lake City, Utah; Algorithm Engineer, 
Idaho Technology
    David W. Kennedy, Champaign, IL; Student, University of Illinois 
at Urbana-Champaign
    David W. Thurston, Monroe, La.; Systems Administrator, 
CenturyTel
    David Yates, Central, South Carolina; Devleopment Scientist, 
Perrigo Company
    Dean Brettle, Gaithersburg, Maryland; Software Engineer, 
brettle.com
    Deane Thomas, New York, NY; Senior Software Architect/Analyst, 
Goldman Sachs & Co.
    Dean Jefferson, Madison, WI; Instructor, Madison Area Technical 
College
    Deanna Cheung, Long Beach, CA; Director, Tara School
    Deanna Thompson, Las Vegas, Nevada; System Adminitrator
    Debbie Shrock, Spangle, WA; Girls'' Dean, Upper Columbia 
Academy
    Deborah Tribble, Scottsdale, Arizona; housewife, n/a
    Delbert Hart, Huntsville, Alabama; Assistant Professor, Computer 
Science Department, University of Alabama in Huntsville
    Del Teel, Charlotte, NC; IT Architect / Engineer, IBM Corp
    Denise Schilling, Big Bend, WI; Consumer, n/a
    Dennis Cruise, Beaverton, Oregon; Developer, Professional Data 
Exchange
    Dennis Jarecke, Kent, Ohio; Physicist, Kent State University
    Dennis Jenkins, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Alpha Geek, Universal 
Savings Bank
    Derek Ramsey, Philadelphia, PA; Software Engineer, n/a
    Derek Scott Young, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; Lead Developer, 
Orcacom Worldnet
    Derek Tarvin, Tulsa, OK; Manager, DecisionOne
    Derek Warnick, Salt Lake City, UT; Software Engineer, 3M
    Derek W. White, Las Vegas, Nevada; IT Student, Community College 
of Southern Nevada
    Derick Siddoway, Salt Lake City, UT; Seriousdata Company, 
Systems Architect
    D.Erickson, San Jose, CA; M.Dir., AdVenture Group
    Devin Kyle Irby, Tivoli, New York; Video Installation Engineer 
(VIE), Ingest Digest
    Dhaval Patel, Roselle Park, New Jersey; n/a
    Diane F. Engles, Raleigh, NC; Software Developer, Rho, Inc.
    Diane McSweeney, San Jose, CA; Webmaster, n/a
    Diane M. Napolitano, Ossining, New York; Linux programmer, n/a
    Diane Walter, Menlo Park, CA; Senior Research Engineer, SRI 
International
    Dj Merrill, Lebanon, New Hampshire; Sr. Unix Systems 
Administrator, Dartmouth College
    D. Mark Abrahams, Berkeley, CA; President and principal analyst, 
Abrahams-Rizzardi, Inc.
    Dominic Eldridge, Sheridan, Michigan; Computer Lab Monitor, 
Montcalm Community College
    Dominic Franchetti, San Mateo, CA; Software Engineer/Project 
Manager, eJiva
    Donald Byrd, Bloomington, IN; Senior Scholar, Indiana University
    Donald Grayson, Louisville, Kentucky; System Administrator, n/a
    Donald J Bindner, Kirksville, MO; Asst Professor of Mathematics, 
Truman State Univ
    Donald R. Clarke, Northport, New York; Staff Operations & 
Training Specialist, USAR
    Donald R. Fairchild, Chesterfield, VA; CEO, Fairchild Software 
Inc.
    Don Black, Newport Beach, CA; Director, Digital ChoreoGraphics
    Don Holmgren, Batavia, IL; Computer Professional, Fermi National 
Accelerator Laboratory
    Don J. Rude, Gaithersburg, Maryland; Owner/CTO, Steem

[[Page 28327]]

    Don J Smith, Columbus, Ohio; Sr. Staff Software Engineer, n/a
    Don Soegaard, Sutter, California; Industrial Engineer, 
entrepreneur
    Dorab Patel, Santa Monica, California; President, Digicraft
    Dorothea Salo, Madison, WI; n/a
    Doug Alcorn, Kings Mills, Ohio; Independant Software Developer, 
Lathi.net
    Doug Bryant, Charleston, SC; Software Engineer, Arthur D. Little
    Doug Burks, Augusta, GA; Systems Administrator, n/a
    Douglas James, West Jordan, UT; Chief Systems Administrator, I-
Net Innovations
    Douglas Lewan, Brick, NJ; Senior Software Engineer, Adir 
Technologies
    Douglas Loss, South Williamsport, PA; Data Network Coordinator, 
Bloomsburg University
    Douglas R. Glenn, Mauldin, SC; Enterprise Applications Analyst, 
KEMET Electronics Corp.
    Douglas Rohrer, Cincinnati, Ohio; Chief Technology Officer, 
Safe@Work
    Doug Matheson, Stockton, CA; Professor, University of the 
Pacific
    Doug McBride, San Mateo, California; Software Developer, 
Liberate Technologies
    Doug Raichle, Princeton, NJ; Member Technical Staff, Sarnoff 
Corp.
    Doug Schafer, Agoura Hills, CA; Principal Hardware Engineer, 
Ixia Pow Hurst, Acworth, Georgia; System Support Specialist, 
Kennesaw State University
    Dow McKeever, Valley Cottage, NY; Sound Designer, Sine Post 
Audio
    Doyle Hopkins, Fort Collins, Colorado; Systen Engineer, LSI 
Logic
    Drake wilson, Pittsburgh, PA; Student, University of Pittsburgh
    Drew Poulin, Edmonds, WA; Translator, Sole Proprietor, TransCom 
Japan Dr. Kenneth R. Brownsberger, Boulder, CO; Software and 
Operations Scientist, University of Colorado--;Boulder
    Dr. Paul E. Black, Gaithersburg, MD; Computer Scientist, Member, 
Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)
    Dr. Scott McCormick, Hamilton, OH; President, ESM Software
    Dr Steve Otto, Portland, Oregon; CTO, TrueDisk Inc.
    Dr. Thomas A. Cleland, Ithaca, NY; Research Associate, Cornell 
University
    D. Scott Alexander; Warren, NJ; Chief Architect, Activium, Inc.
    Duane Gustavus, Denton, Texas; UNIX Research Consultant, 
University of North Texas
    Dudley Irish, Salt Lake City, Utah; IT Consultant, Ars Magna, 
Inc.
    Duncan Murphy, Midway, KY; Consultant, Problem Solved!
    Durwood Gene Bland, Jr., Cary, North Carolina; Software 
Consultant, Analysts International Corporation
    Dusty Wright, westminster, CO; Content development, Sun 
Microsystems
    Dwayne Parks, Fayetteville, AR; Software Engineer, Shinkoh 
Technologies Inc.
    Dwight Briggs, Orange City, F1; Software Engineer, n/a
    Dwight N Buchanan, San Jose, CA; Senior Programmer, IBM
    Dwight Thornton, Reseda, Ca; Owner, Symple Engineering
    Edan Dalton, Atlanta, GA; Research Assistant, Georgia Institute 
of Technology
    Ed Chapman, Point Mugu, CA; Assistant Administrative Officer, US 
Navy
    Eden Crane, Stockton, California; Network Administrator, 
Tonecontrol.net
    Ed Hagerty, Addison, TX; Owner, General Knowledge Corporation
    Ed Howland, St. Louis, MO; Independant Software Consultant, n/a
    Ed Huott, Latham, NY; Consultant, SuperGeek Consolidated
    Ed Leafe, Penfield, NY; Independent Consultant/ Developer, n/a
    Edmond Temple, Piedmont, California; College Instructor, UC 
Berkeley Extension
    Edmund Charles Lewis, Keene, Texas; Dir Administrative 
Computing, Southwestern Adventist University
    Edmund Mitchell, Kingston, NY; Programmer/Analyst, Micro General 
Corporation
    Ed O'Connor, Madison, New Jersey; Independent Software 
Developer, Rebol Scripting Community http://www.rebol.com
    Ed Saipetch, Indianapolis, IN; Developer, Indianapolis Star
    Edward Burton, Lewiston, Idaho; Proprietor and Mediator, 
Clearwater Peace (alternative dispute resolution)
    Edward Byfield, New York, NY; Faculty, Parsons School of Design
    Edward Figarsky, Holland, PA; Programmer, FASTNET Corporation
    Edward F. Valeev, Atlanta, GA; Research Scientist, Georgia 
Institute of Technology
    Edward Kaeufer, Blaine, WA; Software Engineer, CMPI
    Edward Langenback, Cherokee Village, AR; Web designer / 
promoter, n/a
    Edward Lentz, Conshohocken, Pa; Programmer/Analyst, Glaxo Smith 
Kline
    Edward Resnick, Toronto, Ontario; Systems Engineer, Sun 
Microsystems, Inc.
    Edward Schlunder, Mesa, Arizona; Software Engineer, SHEF Systems
    Edward Simmonds, Glendale Heights, IL; Financial Systems 
Consultant, National Association of Realtors
    Edward Smith, Cincinnati, OH; Windows Programmer/Consultant, n/a
    Edward Starback, Troy, MI; Application Engineer, n/a
    E John Swift, Aurora, CO; Technology Teacher, Castle Rock Middle 
School
    Elaine Lindelef, Glendale, CA; Partner, Cognitivity
    Elias Lutfallah, Chicago, IL; System Administrator/Programmer, 
Endeavor Information Systems
    Elijah C. Menifee, Bethany, OK; Software Engineer, da Vinci 
Network Services
    Elijah Wright, Athens, Ohio; Webmaster, http://stderr.org
    Eliot Mason, Waunakee, WI; Lecturer, University of Wisconsin
    Elizabeth Bonney, Cranford, NJ; Library and Information Science 
Graduate Student, Rutgers University
    Elizabeth Edwards, Cambridge, MA; Software Engineer, n/a
    Elizabeth Mieczkowski, New Orleans, LA; Web Developer, Medical 
Center
    Elliot Abramowitz, Glendale, AZ; Student, Private Citizen
    Elliot Jordan, Decorah, IA; Student, Luther College
    Elliott Wilcoxon, Minneapolis, PIN; Student, University of 
Minnesota--;Twin Cities
    E. Matthew Schulz, Iowa City, Iowa; Statistician, ACT, Inc.
    Emily Stambaugh, Chapel Hill, NC; Librarian, American Library 
Association
    Eric A Bolden, Madison, WI; IPC, University of 
Wisconsin--;Madison
    Eric Albers, Jefferson, Maryland; CEO, Vertigo Simulations
    Eric Anderson, Northfield, Minnesota; Software Engineer, 
Lockheed Martin
    Eric Benedict, Madison, WI; Lecturer, Department of Electrical 
and Software
    Engineering
    Eric D. Burgess, Farmers Branch, Texas; Senior Programmer, 
VarTec Telecom
    Eric Fisher, Manilla, Indiana; Student, Novice Programmer
    Eric Gold, Albuquerque, NM; Physician, University of New Mexico
    Eric Hendrickson, Eden Prairie, Minnesota; Systems/Commerce 
Architect, Albedo Applications
    Eric Hidle, Bryn Mawr, PA; Electrical Engineer, Honeywell 
International INC
    Eric Howland, Madison, WI; Consultant and Programmer, n/a
    Eric Irrgang, Austin TX; Computer Programmer, University of 
Texas at Austin
    Eric Jergensen, Bethany, Oklahoma; President, da Vinci Network 
Services
    Eric J. Gleske, Dover, NH; Television Producer/Director, 
Freelance
    Eric Knudstrup, Saratoga, 95070; n/a
    Eric Ludlum, New York City, New York; President, Core77
    Eric Lundquist, Austin, Texas; President, The Robot Group, Inc
    Eric McGough, Pleasanton, CA; CEO, Random Cube, Inc.
    Eric Nedervold, Mountain View, CA; software engineer, self-
employed
    Eric Nichols, Marlborough, MA; Programmer/Analyst, Raybeam 
Solutions
    Eric Roe, Sarasota, Florida; Chemical Engineer, n/a
    Eric Smith, Williamsport, PA; Network Admin, Carole Hockman 
Designs Inc
    Eric Spiegelberg, Savage, MN; Software Developer, n/a
    Eric Stechmann, Shoreview, MN; Software Engineer, n/a
    Eric Stierna, St. Petersburg, Florida; Software Engineer, IEEE 
Member
    Eric Stoll, Rochester, NY; Software Engineer, n/a
    Eric Weeks, Bountiful, Utah; Attorney, Weeks Law Firm
    Eric williams, Pittsburgh, PA; PhD student, University of 
Pittsburgh
    Erik Hanson, Fremont, CA; Software developer, Independent
    Erik Hovland, La Crescenta, CA; Software Engineer, Jet 
Propulsion Laboratory and USCLUG member
    Erik Vered, Indianapolis, Indiana; Consultant/Analyst, n/a
    Ernest Fisch, Phoenix, Arizona; Retired
    Ernest R. Smothers, Burke, VA; n/a
    Esten N Porter, Clinton, MD; Systems Engineer, Galaxy Computer 
Services, Inc. http://www.gcsi.com
    E. Trasel Rowland, M.D., Fort Pierce, Florida; n/a

[[Page 28328]]

    Eugene Clement, Palm Springs, CA; Program manager, n/a
    Eugene Lee, West Lafayette, Indiana; Department of Computer 
Science, Purdue University
    Evan Anderson, Troy, OH; Software Engineer, Oxford Systems 
Integration
    Evan Edwards, Palm Beach, FL; Vice President, Inforule Inc.
    Evan Flink, Santa Rosa, CA; Owner, Electronic Warrior Computer 
Games
    Evan Marshall, Rochester, MN; Systems Administrator, n/a
    Fan Li Tai, Memphis, TN; Senior Data Protections Analyst, FedEx
    Felix Finch, Dutch Flat, CA; Programmer, Scarecrow Repair
    Felix Tan, Oakton, VA; Systems Developer, n/a
    Fen Labalme, San Francisco, CA; Consultant, ACM
    Fletcher Bartley Hubbard, Raleigh, NC; Software Developer, n/a
    Fong Vang, Pleasanton, California; Systems Engineer, Zantaz
    Ford Crews, Jackson, MS; Programmer, ERDC-VBG
    Forde Prigot, Hoboken, NJ; Systems Analyst, Lehman Brothers
    Forrest N Austin, San Francisco, CA; Sr Systems Administrator, 
Digitalpipe
    Frances Felix, Winchester, VA; NOC Liaison Specialist, Covad 
Communications
    Francine Taylor, Tigard, OR; Senior Programmer, Northwest 
Analytical
    Frank DeRosa, Charlottesville, Virginia; Student, University of 
Virginia, Computer Science Department
    Frank Goetz, Wheaton, IL; Computer Program Director, People's 
Resource Center
    Frank J. Cameron, Beaverdale, PA; Student, University of 
Pittsburgh at Johnstown
    Frank J. Iacovino Jr., Baltimore, Maryland; System 
Administrator, n/a
    Frank Riha, Cleveland, Ohio; Senior Systems Consultant, KeyBank
    Frank Skorupski, Nashua, New Hampshire; Account Support 
Engineer, n/a
    Frank Tobin, Long Beach, NY; Software Developer, In-tel-tec 
(http://www.inteltec.com/)
    Frans de Wet, Tallahassee, FL; Software Engineer, n/a
    Fred Cheng, Los Angeles, CA; Student, UCLA
    Frederick C. Smith, Stoneham, MA; Senior Applications 
Programmer/Analyst, n/a
    Frederick Geier, Berkeley, California; VP, Geier & Geier 
Consulting
    Frederick Haab, Atlanta, Georgia; Software Engineer, Turner 
Broadcasting System
    Frederick Malouf, Mountain View, CA; Technical Lead, Glyphic 
Technology
    Fred L. Drake, Jr., Reston, Virginia; Software Engineer, n/a
    Fred Martin, Concord, MA; Educational Technology Designer, 
Gleason Research
    Fumitaka Hayashi, Boston, MA; Research Fellow, Massachusetts 
General Hospital
    Gabriel Freund, West Palm Beach, FL; Financial Analyst, Ocwen
    Galen Seitz, Portland, Oregon; Senior Engineer, Seitz & 
Associates
    Galen Stocking, Moreno Valley, CA; Student, California State 
University San Bernardino
    Gareth J. Greenaway, Thousand Oaks, CA; President, Simi Conejo 
Linux Users Group
    Garrick James, Seattle, WA; Network Security Engineer, Frank 
Russell Company
    Garry Stahl, Dearborn, MI; Editor in Chief, DCG Computer club.
    Garth Minette, San Jose, California; Member of Technical Staff, 
Verisity, Inc.
    Gary Calvin, Los Angeles, California; Systems Administration 
Manager, Kenwood Americas Corporation
    Gary D. Cupp, Jr., Harrisonburg, VA; Owner, HelpNet
    Gary Downing, Menlo Park, CA; Technology Evangelist, Palm, Inc.
    Gary Gordhamer, Waukesha, WI; OWNER / DBA, H&H Consulting 
Services, LLC
    Gary Heller, Orlando, Florida; VP. Development & QA Manager, 
ImageSoft, a Fiserv Resource
    Gary L. Withrow, Santa Cruz, California; Senior DP Programmer/
Analyst and Oracle 8i
    DBA, County of Santa Cruz
    Gary Peck, Berkeley, CA; Computer Science Student, University of 
California, Berkeley
    Gary Schulte, Dallas, TX; Systems Analyst, Singular Software
    Gavin Jefferies, San Francisco, CA; Consultant, Emptytree
    Geff Underwood, Ames, Iowa; System Administrator, Iowa State 
University
    Gene Schmidt, Scottsdale, AZ; Professor, Scottsdale Comm. 
College
    Geng Yang, Austin, TX; Software Engineer, Ashley Laurent, Inc.
    Geoff Hoyer, Oxford, MI; Software Engineer, Clarity
    Geoffrey Bennett, Austin, Texas; Network Security, TICOM
    Geoffrey Gerber, St. Paul, MN; Computer Consultant, n/a
    Geoffrey H. Kuenning, Claremont, CA; Assistant Professor, Harvey 
Mudd College
    Geoff Sanders, San Diego, CA; Systems Engineer, Self
    George B. Czerw, Rancocas, NJ; Network Design & 
Administration Consultant, n/a
    George Chong, Palo Alto, California; Systems Engineer, 
Quinstreet, Inc.
    George Grayson, Chicago, IL; neuroscientist, Abbott Laboratories
    George Hartogensis, Chicago, Illinois; Team Leader--;Unix 
Systems Administration, Rush-Presbyterian St. Lukes Medical Center
    George Rebovich, Acton, MA; Private Citizen, None
    George Robinson II, San Clemente, Ca; n/a
    George Seff, Arlington, VA; President, Limbic Systems
    George Soler, San Francisco, CA; Software Developer, eRide Inc.
    George Vamos, Studio City, California; Principal Engineer, 
Advanced Bionics Corporation
    George Wagner, Sylvania, OH; President, Computers, Support, 
& Consulting
    Gerald Perkins, Brentwood, Tennessee; Retired, n/a
    Giles Hoover, Bradenton, Florida; Co-Owner, MacTampa (http://
www.mactampa.com)
    Gina Erickson, Camarillo, CA; Tech Support, VCNet, Inc.
    Girard Jergensen, Edmond, OK; Software Engineer, n/a
    Gita Sukthankar, Cambridge, MA; Member of Research Staff, Compaq 
Computer
    Glen Canaday, Clearwater, FL; Support tech, BobCAD-CAM, Inc.
    Glen McGraw, Greenville, SC; Consultant, n/a
    Glen M Cornell, Grosse Pointe Park, MI; Software Engineer, Metro 
Link, Inc.
    Glenn Focht, Ph.D., Gordonsville, TN; Owner, Focht Research
    Glenn Hauman, Weehawken, NJ; President & Publisher, 
BiblioBytes
    Glenn Holmer, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Programmer/Analyst, Weyco 
Group, Inc.
    Glenn Josefosky, Ferndale, MI; Sr. Software Engineer, CGN & 
Associates
    Glenn Sokol, Philadelphia, PA; Student, Drexel University
    Glenn Stone, Seattle, WA; Consultant, Gamma Delta Iota
    Glenn Strauss, Manalapan, NJ; Founder, Glue Logic
    Gordie Freedman, Palo Alto, CA; Principal Developer, Dotcast, 
Inc.
    Gordon Fischer, Austin, Texas; Software Developer, Advent 
Networks
    Gordon MacGinitie, Pittsburgh, PA; Sr. Hardware Engineer, 
retired
    Gordon Marx, Charlottesville, VA; Student, University of 
Virginia
    Gordon S. Bauer, Erie, PA; Computer Hardware Technician, Rentway
    Govind Salinas, San Antonio, Texas; Software Developer, n/a
    Graham Mitchell, Leander, TX; computer science teacher, Leander 
High School
    Graham West, Chicago, Illinois; Game Programmer, Midway Games
    Grant Goldade, Mandan, ND; ITD Computer Operator, ITD, ND
    Greg Bailey, Salt Lake City, UT; Consultant, LXPRO.COM
    Greg Barnes, Seattle, Washington; Software Engineer, UW
    Greg Baugher, Hannibal, MO; PC and Network Support, Prince 
Manufacturing Company
    Greg Briggs, Tacoma, Wa; ASPLU Student Government Senator, 
Pacific Lutheran University
    Greg Foster, Columbus, OH; Senior Consultant, 3X Corporation
    Gregg Rice, Toledo, OH; Computer Consultant, n/a
    Greg Koch, Tampa, F1; Computer Consultant, PW Technology
    Greg Kuchta, Fort Collins, CO; Design Engineer, LSI Logic
    Greg Licon, San Francisco, CA; Network Administrator, Key 
Resources
    Greg Lim, Atlanta, GA; Software Developer, InfiStar
    Gregory A. Lund-Chaix, Portland, Oregon; Systems Administrator, 
State of Oregon
    Gregory A. O'Neil, Glendale, N-Y; Systems Engineer, n/a
    Gregory James Berkholtz, Portland, Oregon; Senior Systems 
Administrator and
    Information Security Specialist, Yoshida's Inc.
    Gregory Kirkendall, Parker, CO; President and CEO, OpenEtools
    Gregory Recine, Lyndhurst, NJ; Grad Student (Comp Physics), 
Stevens Institute of Technology
    Gregory R. Warnes, Ph.D., Groton, CT; Statistician and Software 
Developer, n/a

[[Page 28329]]

    Gregory R. Wold, Langhorne, PA; , n/a
    Gregory Y. Tada, Salt Lake City, UT; Software Developer, IAS 
Design
    Greg Roy, Norwell, MA; Software Quality Assurance Engineer, 
PentaSafe Security Technologies
    Greg Steiert, Aloha, OR; Hardware Design Engineer, n/a
    Greg von Beck, Mesa, AZ; Programmer/Analyst, TRW Automotive
    Greg Willden, San Antonio, Texas; Research Engineer, Southwest 
Research Institute
    Griffin Foster, Ramona, California; President, Tera256 Computer 
Club
    G. Robert Mattix, Allen, Tx; Data Network Engineer, n/a
    Guillermo Maturana, Ph.D., Berkeley, CA, CTO Andes Networks, 
Inc.
    Guy Albertelli II, Ann Arbor, MI; Specialist in Educational 
Technology, Michigan State University
    Guy Garrison, San Francisco, California; Motion Graphics 
Designer, Garrison
    Guybernetics
    Guy Speier, La Crescent, MN; Sr. System Administrator, n/a
    Gwen L. Veneskey, Pittsburgh, PA; Director of Marketing and 
Sales, Ounce of Prevention Software
    Hal Black, Columbia, MD; Director, Software, n/a
    Hal Bundy, Ottawa, Kansas; Librarian, Ottawa Library
    Hal King, Knoxville, TN; Systems Programmer, University of 
Tennessee
    Hal Vaughan, Richmond, VA; Owner, Threshold Digital
    Hamlin R. Krewson, Ames, IA; Macintosh Support Tech, Beacon 
Microcenter
    Hank Fisher, Arvada, Colorado; Software Engineer, Private 
Citizen
    Hans Hazelton, Anchorage, AK; Sr. Network Technician, GCI
    Hans Kugler, Tempe, AZ; software engineer, n/a
    Hargun Khanna, San Jose, CA; Student, Archbishop Mitty High 
School
    Harold L. Brooks, Urbana, IL; Network Administrator, Scitec
    Harry Barrett, Canyon Country, Ca.; PC User (12 years), n/a
    Harry G. Harbin, Woodinville, WA; Programmer/Analyst Contractor, 
Tmp.Wordwide/Washington Mutual
    Harvey C. Scobie III, Manchester, NH; Technical Specialist, 
Kollsman
    Harvey Lange, Toney, Alabama; Systems Analyst, n/a
    Harvey Ussery, Hume, Virginia; Member, Northern Virginia Linux 
Users Group
    Harvie Branscomb, Carbondale, CO; Owner, Charybdis
    Heath Oderman, Suffolk, VA; Senior Consultant, netdecisions
    Hector Vasquez, Edinburg, TX; Computer Specialist, The 
University of Texas-Pan American LAC Dept.
    Heidi Miller, Los Gatos, CA; Technical Writer, Gatespace Inc.
    Heidi Shanklin, Portland, OR; Apple Service Tech, Metro
    H. Emery Ford, Kensington, MiD; Senior Programmer, CodeRyte
    Henry Keultjes, Mansfield, OH USA; President, Microdyne Company
    Herb DaSilva, Andover, MA; Senior Software Engineer, Adaptive 
Optics Associates
    Herrick Goldman, Boston, MAss; Designer, Herrick Goldman 
Lighting Design
    Hollie Schmidt, Lexington, Massachusetts; President, Lifting 
Mind Inc.
    Holly Shaltz, Boyne City, MI; Freelance Web Designer, Shaltz 
Farm
    Holly S. Robinson, Tamarac, FL; Technical Writer, Metro Link
    Howard Allen Cohen, Holllywood, Florida; Attorney, Atkinson, 
Diner, Stone, Mankuta and Ploucha, P.A.
    Howard E. Melton III, Sacramento, California; Registered Voter, 
Self Employed
    H. W. Egdorf, Los Alamos, NM; Technical Staff Member, Los Alamos 
National Laboratory
    H. william Welliver III, Mountain Top, PA; Systems 
Administrator, Fairchild Semiconductor
    Ian Ballantyne, Vienna, ; Software Engineer and System 
Administrator, Schuster and
    Hwesta Gmbh
    Ian Billington, Ester, AK; Student / Network Tech, University of 
Alaska Fairbanks
    Ian Felton, Morgantown, West Virginia; n/a
    Ian Hall-Beyer, Prairie Village, KS; Consultant
    Ian McMahon, Atlanta, GA; Linux Software Engineer, e-
VERIFILE.com
    Ian Ragsdale, Austin, Texas; Software Engineer, SKYLIST
    Ian Sterling, Memphis, TN; System Administrator, n/a igor 
Furlan, San Jose CA; IC Design Engineer, National Semiconductor
    Ilan Rabinovitch, Encino, CA; n/a
    Ilya Volynets, Belmont, CA; VP of Engineering, Total Knowledge
    Imad Hussain, West Lafayette, IN; Student, Purdue University
    Ismet Kursunoglu, MiD, Manhattan Beach, CA; Founder, 
linuxatlax.org
    Ivan Kohler, San Francisco, CA; Developer, Debian
    Jack Dunn, Omaha, Nebraska; Citizen, n/a
    Jack Gott, Austin, Texas; Software Engineer, Compaq
    Jack Green, San Francisco, CA; n/a
    Jackie D. Smith, Imperial, Missouri; retired
    Jack L Caldwell, Jr., Sugar Hill, GA; Member Technical Staff, 
Movaz Networks
    Jack Lloyd, Baltimore, MD; System Administrator, Johns Hopkins 
University
    Jack Park, Brownsville, CA; Independent Software Developer, 
Thinkalong Software
    Jack Wenger, Madison, WI; IS Sytems Specialist, Wisconsin 
Department of Natural Resources
    Jacob Gemmell, Juneau, Alaska; Network Specialist, Alaska 
Department of Labor & Workforce Development
    Jake Robb, Grand Rapids, Michigan; Software Engineer, 43rd 
Parallel Technologies
    James Adams, Denver, CO; Software Engineer, Agilent Technologies
    James Altes, Washington, DC; Electronic Publishing Specialist, 
American Red Cross
    James Ault, Albany, NY; Information Security Leader, Noble 
Consulting
    James B. Bushman, Medina, Ohio; President, Bushman & 
Associates
    James B. Evins, Alexandria, VA.; Electrical Engineer, n/a
    James B. Greer, Memphis, TN; Concerned Citizen, Group Of Linux 
Users in Memphis
    James B. Rimmer, San Diego, California; Software Engineer, 
CenterComm
    James Damour, Albany, New York; Principle Consultant, Keane
    James David McIninch, Ph.D., Burlington, MA; Computational 
Biologist, Cereon Genomics
    James Dixon, Mannington, WV; n/a
    James Domenico, San Francisco, CA; TECH, Self-employed
    James E. Collins, Jr., Hinesburg, VT; V. P., Treasurer, Vermont 
BS
    James E Flemer, Troy, NY; Student, Rensselaer Polytechnic 
Institute
    James E. Powell, Englewood, CO; President, Silver Future 
Software
    James Fitch, Napa, CA; Chief Deputy and System Administrator, 
Solano County Public Defender
    James Flynn, Sunnyvale, California; Software Engineer, Self 
Employed
    James Gallagher, Cypress, CA; Software Engineer, Boeing--;C-
17 Engineering Data Management
    James Gettys, Carlisle, Massachusetts; Principal Member of 
Technical Staff, Compaq
    James Giacchi, Warren, NJ; Personel, persinel
    James Gregory Davidson, San Diego, California; Instructor, 
Learning Tree International
    James Hardwick, Salt Lake City, Utah; Software Engineer, GE 
Medical Systems
    James Hebert, Paradise, CA; Consultant, Self Employed
    James Henderson, Salt Lake City, UT; Sr. Systems Engineer, n/a
    James H. Kimura, Berkley, Michigan; End User, Private Citizen
    James John Ewell III, Katy, Texas; CEO, Ewell Enterprises
    James Kennedy, Topeka, Kansas; Progammmer/System Administrator, 
Standard Beverage Corporation
    James Lamanna, Pasadena, CA; Student, California Institute of 
Technology
    James Landon, Overland Park, Kansas; Senior Network Engineer, 
Sprint Corporation ,lames LasCola, Portland, OR; Systems Admin, 
Romar
    James LewisMoss, Durham, NC; Developer, Linux Developers Group
    James Lieb, Fremont, California; Software Consultant, Wild Open 
Source Inc.
    James Lopez, Carrollton, Texas; Sales Manager, CompUSA
    James L Osborn, Jr MSEE, Melbourne Beach, Florida; Senior 
Account Engineer, PacketVideo Corporation
    James L. Sullivan, Fort Pierce, FL; Supervisor, Harbor Branch 
Oceanographic
    Institution
    James Lucha, Moreno Valley, CA; Programmer/Analyst, San 
Bernardino Medical Group
    James Mitchell Ullman, Statesboro, Georgia; Technical Support 
Specialist I, Georgia Southern University
    James Moss, Gresham, Oregon; Creative Director, Personal Image 
Concepts
    James M. Smith, St. Louis, MO; Manager, Technical Services, 
Intercon

[[Page 28330]]

    James Myers Jr., Middletown, NY; Water Operator, Town of Goshen
    James Newby, Carbondale, IL; Undergraduate, SIUC
    James Patrick Miculka, Houston, Texas; Software Engineer, BMC 
Software
    James Perkins, Beaverton, OR; Software Engineer, IEEE Associate 
Member
    James Price, Atlanta, Georgia; System Administrator, n/a
    James R. Hofmann, Naperville, IL; Senior Software Engineer, 
Ricardo Software
    James Richard Tyrer, Green Valley, AZ; Consultant; Member, ACM
    James R. Leu, Allison Park, PA; Independent Software Developer, 
n/a
    James R. Maynard III, Fairmont, Minnesota; Senior Systems 
Engineer, Global MAINTECH Corporation
    James Roberts, Birmingham, AL; Software Engineer, BankWare
    James Rogers, Ridgecrest, CA; Software Engineer, NAWCWD
    James Salsman, Mountain View, CA; Private Citizen, United States 
of America
    James Sanford, Norwood, OH; Developer, Reynolds and Reynolds
    James Shofstall, Carterville, Illinois; Owner, Select Synthetics
    James Simons, Atascocita, Texas; Webmaster, International 
Webmasters Association
    James Sterling Jr., McCrory, Arkansas; Computer Technician, 
Crabtree's Computer
    James S. Wadell, Anchorage, Alaska; Systems Analyst, SAIC
    James Wartell, Tucson, Az; Programmer, University of Arizona
    James White, Laguna Hills, CA; Software Consultant, Pagesmiths
    James W. Wiebmer, Petaluma, CA; Manager Systems Administration, 
Westwave Communications, Inc.
    James Zach II, Frankton, IN; Electronics Technician, Smurfit-
Stone Container
    Jamie Dow, Newport Beach, CA; Student, University of California, 
Irvine
    Jamie Lee Cho, North Bergen, New Jersey; Technical Architect, 
Zelo Technologies
    Jamie Piperberg, Hamden, CT; Software Engineer, n/a
    Jamie Yukes, Seattle, WA; Independent Consultant, TCN 
Communications
    Jared Allar, Fargo, North Dakota; Student, North Dakota State 
University
    Jared Curtis, Fresno, CA; Student, Fresno City College
    Jared Robinson, Springville, UT; Software Engineer, Symantec 
Corporation
    Jarred Fehr, Marietta, Georgia; PC Coordinator, Peachtree 
Business Products
    J. Arruda, Santa Clara, CA; Corporate Alchemist, VA Software
    Jason A. Dujardin-Terry, Spokane, WA; Computer Tech, Descriptive 
Imaging
    Jason A. Tripp, Edenton, NC; Independent Software Developer, n/a
    Jason Baietto, Boca Raton, Florida; Principal Engineer, 
Concurrent Computer Corporation
    Jason Balicki, St. Louis, MO; Sr. Network Engineer, Alexander 
Systems
    Jason Bergstrom, Portland, OR; System Administrator, Mentor 
Graphics
    Jason Box, Binghamton, New York; Software Engineer, Self
    Jason Cox, Irvine, Ca; IT Manager, E-Commerce Exchange
    Jason Day, Atlanta, GA; Software Engineer,n/a
    Jason Greene, Fairway, Kansas; Software Eng. IV, Sprint
    Jason Guidry, Brackettville, Texas; Director of Bands, Brackett 
ISD
    Jason Henriksen, Concord, CA; President, Hardy Henriksen Hughes 
Consulting, Inc.
    Jason Howard, Oakdale, CA; Software Engineer, SpectSoft
    Jason Jobe, Purcellville, VA; President, Datalore
    Jason L. Shiffer, Vienna, VA; Senior Software Engineer, 
Zerotao.com
    Jason McC. Smith, Chapel Hill, NC; PhD Candidate, Univ of North 
Carolina at Chapel Hill
    Jason M. Crist, Lexington, Kentucky; New Media Specialist, Hart 
Media Services
    Jason M. Felice, Cleveland, OH; Technology consultant and 
business owner, Cronosys
    Jason Noble, Atlanta, Georgia; Software Engineer, n/a
    Jason Penney, Dracut, MA; Software Engineer, n/a
    Jason Pierce, Greensboro, NC; Computer Field Technician, 
Softwired Systems
    Jason Purdy, Cary, NC; Chief Technology, Journalistic, Inc.
    Jason Radecki, Porter, Indiana; Engineer, Local 150
    Jason Reich, San Diego, CA; Software Engineer, Qualcomm, Inc.
    Jason Rennie, Cambridge, MA; Graduate Student, Massachusetts 
Institute of Technology
    Jason Samsa, Appleton, Wisconsin; Database Administrator, 
Airadigm Communications
    Jason Scheirer, Riverside, California; Professional Student 
Intern, County of Riverside, CA
    Jason Shonk, Montclair, NJ; Electronic Engineer, n/a
    Jason Shupe, Pasadena, CA; System Engineer/Student, JPL/Cal Poly 
Pomona
    Jason Stefanovich, Alexandria, VA; Software Test Analyst, US 
Government
    Jason Titus, Brooklyn Park, MN; Consultant, Independent
    Jason Waterman, Cambridge, MA; Research Scientist, MIT
    Jason Westlake, Newnan, Georgia; Computer Technician, ICA 
Consulting
    Jason Woolever, Sunnyvale, CA; Sr. R&D Engineer, Synopsys, 
Inc.
    Jayan Moolayil, Chicago, IL; Senior Software Engineer, n/a
    Jay Beale, Baltimore, MD; President, JJB Security Consulting
    Jaye Mathisen, Medford, OR; Manager, Western Telephone 
Integrated Communications
    Jay R. Walker, Valparaiso, IN; Application Developer, Golden 
Technologies, Inc.
    Jay Sachs, North Adams, MA; Development Architect, Eziba.com
    Jay Sulzberger, Yonkers, New York; Corresponding Secretary, 
LXNY, New York's Free Software Organization
    Jay W. Luther, San Anselmo, CA; Attorney, Law Offices of Jay W. 
Luther
    J.B. Nicholson-Owens, Champaign, Illinois; Consultant & 
Owner, Forest Field Consulting
    J. Clifton Bullard, Memphis, TN; Programmer, US Postal Service
    JC Pollman, Burke, Virginia; Major, US Army
    J. David Eisenberg, San Jose, CA; Programmer/Teacher/Writer, n/a
    Jeanne S. Glazer, Silver Spring, FID; Consultant, The Seva Group
    Jean-Pierre, Ann Arbor, Michigan; student, University of 
Michigan
    Jedediah Roach, Davis, California; Student, University of 
California, Davis
    Jeff Adams, Kyle, TX; System Administrator, n/a
    Jeff Brown, San Diego, CA; Graduate Student Researcher, UC San 
Diego
    Jeff Carlson, Encino, CA; Systems Administrator, InfoUSA / 
www.easytel.net
    Jeff Coffin, Nevada City, CA; Software Engineer, contractor for 
American Airlines
    Jeff Couturier, Tampa, FL; Web Application Developer, ATT
    Jeff Donner, Randolph, Massachusetts; Software Engineer, 
Scheduling Systems Inc
    Jeff Greenman, Los Angeles, CA, Paralegal, General Counsel's 
Office, Los Angeles Community College District
    Jeff Hayas, Boulder, Colorado; Senior Software Engineer, Storage 
Technology Corporation
    Jeff Holcomb, Tucson, Arizona; Software Engineer, Red Hat
    Jeff Hostetler, Jeffersonville, IN; President and Software 
Craftsman, Jeff Hostetler
    Jeff Jackowski, Cary, North Carolina; Software Developer, n/a
    Jeff Jennings, Boulder, CO; Advisory Firmware Engineer, 
Benchmark Storage Innovations
    Jeff Lightfoot, Peoria, AZ; Systems Controller, US Air Force
    Jeff Mayzurk, Los Angeles, CA; Vice President, Technology, E! 
Entertainment Television, Inc.
    Jeff McKenna, Redmond, WA; President, McKenna Consulting Group
    Jeffrey A. Ebert, Half Moon Bay, CA; Senior Logic Designer, 
Sonics, Inc.
    Jeffrey A. Worth, Stoneham, MA; Senior Vice President/MIS 
Manager, Stoneham Savings Bank
    Jeffrey Barger, Mason's Neck, Virginia; Systems Admin/Engineer, 
Maczilla Heavy Industries
    Jeffrey Bridge, Houston, TX; Programmer, Thyme Technology
    Jeffrey C. Albro, Duxbury, NA; Consultant, interaction-
engineer.com
    Jeffrey Dale Greenfield, Grand Rapids, MI; Systems Engineer, 
Calvin College
    Jeffrey D. Kent, Austin, Tx; Stores Manager, Physics Dept.
    Jeffrey Goff, Forest Heights, MD; Software Engineer, Blackboard 
Inc.
    Jeffrey Johnson, Livermore, CA; Computer Scientist, Lawrence 
Livermore National Laboratory
    Jeffrey K. Downey, Raleigh, NC; Editor, Triangle Sports Journal
    Jeffrey L. Clark, Coon Rapids, MN; Principal Software Engineer, 
EDS PLM Solutions
    Jeffrey L. Susanj, Florissant, MO; Member, ACM
    Jeffrey Quinn, Nashville, TN; System Software Specialist, 
Vanderbilt University Medical Center

[[Page 28331]]

    Jeffrey Rehbein, Water Valley, MS; Macintosh Games Developer, n/
a
    Jeffrey R Pitman, Hillsboro, OR; Software Engineer, Brooks 
Automation
    Jeffrey S. Morgan, Cleveland, Ohio; Director of Technology, 
Bristol West Insurance
    Jeffrey Wescott, San Francisco, California; Software Developer, 
n/a
    Jeffrey Willis, Columbus, Ohio; Student, Ohio State University
    Jeffrey Y. Sue, MD, Honolulu, HI; Diagnostic Radiologist, n/a
    Jeff Rosowski, Las Vegas, NV; Network Systems Specialist, n/a
    Jeffry Jones, Marietta, GA; Senior Internet Application 
Developer, weather.com
    Jeff Shultz, Sacramento, CA; Partner, Sunfire Design and 
Consulting
    Jeff Wandling, Fall City, WA; Software Development Engineer, 
RealNetworks
    Jeff Wieland, West Lafayette, IN; Network Analyst/Engineer, 
Purdue University
    Jef Spaleta, Princeton, NJ; Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma 
Physics Lab
    Jemaleddin S. Cole, Glen Burnie, MD; Systems Analyst, Data 
Computer Corp. America
    Jem Lewis, Seattle, WA; Software Engineer, n/a
    Jennifer Bohmbach, Minneapolis, MN; Information Architect, 
Imaginet
    Jennifer Mandel, Los Angeles, Ca; Computer Tech, freelance
    Jeremiah Bachmann, Pittsburgh, PA; Software Engineer, n/a
    Jeremiah Gilbert, Moriah, New York; Consultant, vtnetworks.net
    Jeremiah Stanley, Arvada, CO; n/a
    Jeremiah Trudeau, Tolland, CT; Graduate Student, University of 
Connecticut
    Jeremy D. Foshee, Seneca, SC; Programmer/Systems Analyst, 
Integrated Support Systems, Inc.
    Jeremy Green, Norman, OK; CTO, Digital Commerce Solutions
    Jeremy Howes, Charlotte, NC; Product Mechanical Designer, 
Eurotherm Drives Inc
    Jeremy Leader, Arcadia, CA; Software Developer, self employed
    Jeremy McMillan, Chicago, IL; Unix System Administrator, Aon
    Jeremy Noetzelman, Seattle, Washington; Senior Network Engineer, 
University of Washington
    Jeremy Padfield, Dallas, TX; Design Verification Engineer, n/a
    Jeremy Pastore, Bethlehem, PA; systems analyst, libra consulting 
corp.
    Jeremy Petersen, Draper, Utah; Manager, TeachStream
    Jeremy Schiffer, NYC, NY; Computer Security Administrator, 
Columbia University
    Jeremy Stanley, Orem, UT; Software Engineer, LDS Missionary 
Training Center
    Jeremy Walker, Southfiled, MI; Software Developer, i33
    Jeremy White, Saint Paul, Minnesota; President & CEO, 
CodeWeavers, Inc.
    Jerome D Krough, Laurel, Maryland; Chemist, n/a
    Jerome Falatko, Reading, PA; Computer Systems Analyst, n/a
    Jerry C. McGill, Ph.D., Crowley, Texas; Associate Professor, 
UNTHSC-FW
    Jerry L. Neff, Fresno, CA; Programmer/Analyst, State Center 
Community College District
    Jerzy Puchala, Alpharetta, Georgia; Senior Sftware Engineer, 
Still Current Development
    Jeshua Smith, Madison, WI; Undergraduate Student, University of 
Wisconsin
    Jesse Becker, Evanston, IL; Systems Administrator, n/a
    Jesse Burson, Boston, MA; Manager of MIS, Adaptive Optics 
Associates
    Jesse Donaldson, San Jose, CA; Senior Software Engineer, Palm, 
Inc.
    Jesse Holden, Ukiah, CA; Web Designer / Computer Technician, 
Independent Contractor
    Jessica Slason, Southington, CT; Microsoft Alternatives 
Hobbyist, n/a
    J.F. Neveau II, Essexville, MI; Trooper, Michigan Dept. of State 
Police
    Jill Ratkevic, Sunnyvale, Ca; Consultant, n/a
    Jim Barnes, Bellevue, WA; Network Administrator, S&B Inc.
    Jim Belant, Pulaski, Wisconsin; Electrical Engineer, System 
Engineer
    Jim Bengtson, Nevada, Iowa; Sr. Programmer/Analyst, Ruan 
Transportation
    Jim Bertin, Hysham, MT; Tech Coordinator, Hysham Public Schools
    Jim Eikner, Austin, Texas; Network Administrator, n/a
    Jim Gamble, Warrenton, VA; Software Engineer, n/a
    Jim Matisi, Richardson, Texas; Sr. Middleware Administrator, 
CompUSA
    Jim Miller, Cedar Rapids, IA; Chief of Software Infrastructure, 
i-OP
    Jim Priest, Raleigh, North Carolina; CTO, ClickCulture
    Jim Quinn, Shelton, CT; Desktop Systems Administrator, Getronics
    Jim Roland, Irving, TX; Consultant, n/a
    J. Kenneth Gentle, Lincoln University, PA; Software Architect, 
iMedium, Inc.
    J Matte, Atlanta, GA; Application Programmer, Peachtree Business 
Products
    J. Nathan Matias, Mount Joy, PA; Technologist, Allied Networks 
(www.allied.net)
    JoAnna Minneci, Los Angeles, CA; Webmistress, On Target Design
    Joe Howard, Puyallup, WA; Student, University of Puget Sound
    Joe Kazura, Durham, NH; Information Technologist, University of 
New Hampshire
    Joel F. Leland, Oceanside, Ca; Owner, http://
www.moonstoneservices.com/
    Joel Garringer, Tulsa, OK; Senior Web-Designer/Developer, Tek-
Systems
    Joel Harris, Indianapolis, IN; Consultant, Bravura Systems
    Joel Kickbusch, Rockledge, FL; Lead Software Engineer, e-
Security
    Joel Miles, Maplewood, MN; IT Support Specialist, Science Museum 
of Minnesota
    Joel Schneider, Bloomington, Minnesota; Software Developer, 
Effective Tech Services
    Joe Marcotte, Honolulu, HI; Network Security/Firewall 
Administrator, n/a
    Joe Naccarato, Wilmington, DE; Programmer, Dade Behring
    Joe Provo, Needham, MA; Director, RCN Corporation
    Joe Smith, Philadelphia, PA; biomedical research fellow, Thomas 
Jefferson University
    Joe Weber, Louisville, CO; Senior Technologist, Cable Television 
Laboratories
    John August, New Orleans, Louisiana; Analyst, Tulane University
    John A. Varela, McLean, VA; Retired
    John Beal II, Bend, OR; Network Engineer II, Orcom Solutions, 
Inc.
    John Beamon, Baton Rouge, LA; Internet Systems Administrator, 
EATEL
    John Bekas, Jr., Chicago, IL; Software Architect, Confirmative 
Technologies, Inc.
    John Bryan, Austin, Texas; Programmer Analyst, Broadwing 
Communications
    John Callaway, Santa Cruz, California; Software Engineer, 
visiComp
    John Carpenter, Brookfield, WI; Software Engineer, Penta 
Technologies
    John Clayton Long, Tallahassee, Florida; Programmer, Graphic 
Artist, Student, National High Magnetic Field Laboratory
    John Clymer, Fairmont, MN; Software Engineer, Kahler Automation
    John C Meuser, West Lafayette, Indiana; Student, Purdue 
University
    John Crowley, Somerville, MA; Web Consultant, johncrowley.net
    John D. Heintz, Austin, TX; Software Integrator, Isogen 
International, LLC.
    John Diley, Gaithersburg, Maryland; n/a
    John D. Mitchell, Moraga, CA; Citizen, USA
    John Donaldson, Brattleboro, Vermont; Director, K2Kid:HyperMedia
    John Edstrom, Newport, OR; Senior Programmer, NewSof Group
    John E. Ivory, New Hartford, NY; President, Blue Vista Solutions
    John Enters, Cedarburg, WI; Web and Database Developer, 
Sysnetweb
    John Evans, Boston, Massachusetts; Computer Specialist, 
Association of Computing Machinery
    John Ewart, San Bernardino, California; Software Developer, 
LANtrocity
    John F Biggs II, Charlotte, North Carolina; Systems Admin, 
Wachovia
    John F. Chamblee, Tucson, AZ; Graduate Research Associate, 
Center for Applied Spatial Analysis
    John F. Houde, San Francisco, California; Assistant Research 
Neuroscientist, University of California
    John Franks, Evanston, IL; Professor, Northwestern University
    John G. Hasler, Elmwood, Wisconsin; Debian Developer
    John Goodleaf, Seattle, Washington; Technology Coordinator, 
Immunex
    John Grayless, San Antonio, Texas; IT Director, Gerloff Company, 
Inc.
    John Guthrie, Washington, DC; Software Developer, American 
Institutes for Research
    John Hall, Fairbanks, Alaska; Programmer, University of Alaska
    John Hardin, Snohomish, Washington; Internal Systems 
Administrator, Apropos Retail Management Systems, Inc.
    John Hatch, Dundas, MN; Computer User: Microsoft, Linux and 
Apple Products, n/a
    John Heasley, Portland, Oregon; n/a
    John Hohm, Oak Forest, IL; Software Developer, Applied Systems, 
Inc.
    John Holcomb, Greenville, IL; n/a
    John Holstein, Charleston, WV; Helpdesk/Support Coorinator, 
www.cotse.com

[[Page 28332]]

    John H. Robinson, IV, San Diego, CA; Systems Administrator, 
University of California
    John (Jack) Varga, Lafayette, Colorado; Data Systems/Software 
Architect, Independent
    John J. Beach, Waterville, MN; Instructor, PC/LAN, IT 
Department, Brown College
    John Karakash, Raleigh, NC; Senior Software Engineer, Lv17 
Systems Inc.
    John K. Edwards, Burke, VA; Vice President, Results Computing 
Corporation
    John K. Herndon, Kansas City, Missouri; Student, DeVry
    John K. Molnar, Atlanta, GA; Network Security Developer, Trellis 
Network Security
    John Kroll, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Systems Analyst, n/a
    John Langley, Hollis, NH; Director of Platform Archtiecture, 
KANA Software
    John L. Grzesiak, Derry, NH; Senior Analyst, The Learning 
Incentive
    John Manning, Sterling, VA; President, electronworks, inc.
    John McCain, Birmingham, Alabama; Systems Engineer, Layer3 
Communications
    John Medway, Austin, TX; Human Being, Human Race
    John Meek, Dallas, Tx; Owner, Your IT Services
    John Merryweather Cooper, College Place, Washington; Student/
FreeBSD Maintainer, n/a
    John M. Siino, Reno, NV; Sole-Proprietor, Advanced Engineering 
Services
    John Napiorkowski, New York City, NY; Senior Programmer, Bristol 
Myers Squibb
    John Oglesby, Snohomish, Washington; President, Data Index, Inc.
    John Oliver, San Diego, CA; Systems Administrator, hosting.com
    John Paquin, Freeland, Maryland; Senior Programmer, Breakaway 
Games
    John P. Conner, Colorado Springs, CO; President, Empire Digital 
Instruments
    John Peter Hermes, Waterloo, Illinois; DBA, Fleishman-Hillard
    John Pierce, Palatine, IL; Consultant, n/a
    John Pulliam, Frisco, Tx; Associate Technical Profesional, 
Halliburton Energy Services
    John Quigley, Greenwich, Connecticut; Student, SUNY Maritime 
College
    John Reyst, Royal Oak, Michigan; Owner, Net-Mechanics.com
    John Rohrbaugh, Fort Collins, CO; Design Automation Engineer, 
Agilent Technologies
    John Seals, Minneapolis, MN; Consultant, Solution Design Group
    John Soliday, Marietta, GA; Systems Administrator, Self john 
Stillwagen, San Diego, CA; Database Administrator, La Jolla 
Institute for Allergy and Immunlogy
    John Stoneham, Baltimore, MD; Associate Software Engineer, 
eOriginal, Inc.
    John Stoner, Chicago, Illinois; Software Developer, Independent
    John Sweeney, Satellite Beach, FL; Systems Administrator, SAIC
    John Tebbutt, Frederick, MD; Computer Scientist, The National 
Institute of Standards and Technology
    John Tobias, San Francisco, California; Sr. Network Engineer, 
Marin Networks Inc.
    John Vann, Collegeville, PA; Web Developer, Kaloke Technologies
    John Van Patten, Petoskey, Michigan; Violinist/Music Instructor, 
Self employed
    John Viega, Warrenton, VA; CTO, Secure Software Solutions
    John Vitek, Anderson, SC; Owner/President, Ideal Solutions
    John V. Martinez, Atlanta, GA; Principal Software Engineer, 
Ciena
    John Voigt, Terre Haute, Indiana; System Administrator, Valley 
Technology
    John Walsh, Broomfield, CO; Java Architect, Sun Microsystems
    John Wedoff, Somerville, MA; Software Developer, n/a
    John Wendel, Monterey, CA; Computer Programmer, U.S. Navy
    John Wenger, Ph.D., Redondo Beach, CA; Internet Consultant, 
Wenger Consulting
    John W. Linville, Mebane, NC; Computer Engineer, LVL7 Systems, 
Inc.
    John Wohlers, Somonauk, IL; Library Technology Assistant, 
Waubonsee community College
    Jonathan Abbey, Austin, TX; Senior Operating System Specialist, 
The University of Texas at Austin
    Jonathan Blocksom, Vienna, VA; President, GollyGee Software
    Jonathan Booth, Urbana, IL; Graduate Student, UIUC
    Jonathan Cameron, Chandler, Arizona; Software Engineer, Motorola
    Jonathan D. Nolen, Santa Barbara, CA; Web Developer, n/a
    Jonathan E. Greenberg, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Lead Consultant, 
Innovative Process Solutions
    Jonathan Freiermuth, Rochester, NY; Lead Systems Engineer, 
VoiceWeb Corporation
    Jonathan Hartley, Denver, CO; Senior Software Engineer, 
SchlumbergerSema
    Jonathan Hart, Livermore, CA; Citizen, citizen
    Jonathan Haskins, Los Angeles, CA; Web Designer, n/a
    Jonathan Hill, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Systems Administrator, 
Marshall & Ilsley Corporation
    Jonathan Kamens, Brighton, MA; Senior Software Engineer, Curl 
Corporation
    Jonathan Korman, San Francisco, CA; Principal designer, Cooper 
Interaction Design
    Jonathan Lindstrom, St. Louis, MO; Senior MIS Specialist, 
Anheuser-Busch Companies
    Jonathan McLin, Tempe, AZ; Chief Technology Officer, Cottonwood 
Technology Group
    Jonathan M. Hamlow, Minneapolis, MN; Development Coordinator, 
Public Radio International
    Jonathan Morris, Portland, Oregon; ASQ Certitified Software 
Quality Engineer, private citizen
    Jonathan Newquist, Kearney, Nebraska; computer technician, n/a
    Jonathan Niebling, Boston, Mass.; Flight Attendant, American 
Airlines
    Jonathan Nizar, Baltimore, Maryland; Student, Johns Hopkins 
University
    Jonathan Powers, Melbourne, FL; Digital Designer, Harris Corp.
    Jonathan Troiano, Los Angeles, CA; IT Consultant, Freelance
    Jonathan Walton, Newport Beach, CA; Design Engineer, Gordian
    Jonathan Weeks, Seattle, WA; Director of Engineering, Performant
    Jon Beckett Schreiber, Milwaukee, WI; IT Testing Analyst, 
Manpower
    Jon Ciesla, Des Moines, IA; PC Systems Support, American 
Republic Insurance Company
    Jon Hartwell, La Crescent, MN; Consultant, FIDS
    Jon McClintock, El Cerrito, CA; Project Engineer, Blue Mug
    Jordan Peterson, Watertown, WI; Network Administrator II, 
DeLaRue Cash Systems
    Jorge Guerra, Miami, FL; Business Development Manager, Opera 
Software
    Joseph A. Knapka, El Paso, TX; Sysems Engineer, TransCore 
Intelligent Traffic Systems, Inc.
    Joseph Alek Piasecki, Danville, Illinois; Systems Administrator, 
Danville Holdings, Inc.
    Joseph Buck, Campbell, CA; Principal Engineer, Synopsys
    Joseph Cooper, Portland, Oregon; Programmer, Torment Interactive
    Joseph Crowley III, Dedham, MA; Data Entry Specialist, Preferred 
Temporaries
    Joseph Daniel Lyman, Tigard, OR; CIO, Exacura Professional 
Technologies
    Joseph Esrey, Gainesville, FL; Student, Anthropology, University 
of Florida
    Joseph Foley, Cambridge, MA; Senior Software Engineer, Akamai 
Technologies
    Joseph J Collins, Middlesboro, Kentucky; Pharmacist, n/a
    Joseph Kanowitz, Ridgefield, CT; Network Administrator, 
Individual
    Joseph K. Fish, Raytown, Missouri; Programmer / Analyst, 
DataCapture Technologies
    Joseph L. Hill, Hanover, NH; Unix Systems Manager, Dartmouth 
College
    Joseph L. McCay, Manchester, NH; Software Engineer, n/a
    Joseph Lubin, New York City, New York; Senior Software Engineer, 
emagine solutions
    Joseph Majeske, Highland Park, NJ; VP Software, Sonorus, Inc.
    Joseph Palmer, San Jose, CA; (Former) Director of Hardware 
Engineering, Be, Inc.
    Joseph R. Justice, Alexandria, VA; Computer Programmer, self-
employed
    Joseph Rock, Ann Arbor, MI; Communications Engineer, NextHop 
Technologies Inc.
    Joseph Shraibman, New York, NY; Director of Internet Operations, 
Xtenit Inc (http://www.xtenit.com)
    Joseph Sloan, Fullerton, Ca; Systems Engineer, Mirai Consulting
    Joseph Vandevander, Raleigh, North Carolina; System 
Administrator, n/a
    Joseph W. Gibson, Pasadena, CA; Lead Software Engineer, n/a
    Josep L. Guallar-Esteve, Chapel Hill, NC; QA Testing Engineer, 
Red Hat Inc. & member of IEEE Computer Society
    Josh Bauguss, Albuquerque, New Mexico; Senior Programmer, Web-
Galleries
    Josh Douglas, Bedford, VA; Systems Administrator, Smyth 
Companies
    Josh Jackson, Houston, TX; Founder, University of Houston Linux 
Users Group
    Josh Mayers, Boston, MA; Network Engineer, n/a
    Josh Prokop, Brewster, MA; Independent Softeware Developer, n/a
    Josh Simon, Aurora, IL; Principal, Joshua S. Simon Consulting
    Joshua Arnold, Austin, Texas; Systems Administrator, IronRhino

[[Page 28333]]

    Joshua Bennett, Chicago, IL; Corporate Systems Technologist, ABN 
A mro
    Joshua Crone, Baltimore, Maryland; Unix Systems Administrator, 
Advertising.Com
    Joshua Fluty, Greenville, SC; Independent Programmer, n/a
    Joshua Fritsch, Stamford, CT; Security Analyst, UnixGeeks.Org
    Joshua Fryman, Bogart, GA; PhD Student and Researcher, Georgia 
Institute of Technology
    Joshua Kayse, Smyrna, Georgia; Student, n/a
    Joshua Keith, Malden, MA; n/a, n/a
    Joshua Kirby, Little Rock, Arkansas; IT Specialist III, 
Southwest Power Pool
    Joshua Levenson, Raleigh, NC; Premier ISV Partner Engineer, Red 
Hat
    Joshua Smith, East Lansing, Michigan; Student, Michigan State 
University
    Joshua Willingham, Phoenix, AZ; Technical Coordinator, Aries 
Technology, Inc.
    Josh Varner, Bartlesville, Oklahoma; Programmer, Diversified 
Systems Resources
    Josiah Royse, Lexington, KY; Technical Contractor, Analysts 
International
    J. Scott Evans, Springfield, VA; Chief Technology Officer, 
Computational Physics, Inc.
    J. Scott Jaderholm, Provo, Utah; Student, Brigham Young 
University
    Juan Lang, San Jose, CA; software engineer, Cranite Systems
    Judd Rogers, Austin, Texas; Product Developer, BMC Software
    Judith Phillips, Atlanta, Georgia; Learning Products Engineer, 
HP
    Jules Agee, Seattle, WA; System Administrator, Pacific Coast 
Feather Co.
    Jules Siegel, Cancun, Quintana Roo; Writer and Graphic Designer, 
CafeCancun.com
    Julia Christianson, Arlington, VA; Administrative Director, ICON 
Community Services
    Julia Hart, NYC, NY; Student, Columbia University



MTC-00028573--;0025

    Julia Mackert, Galesburg, Illinois; PC Support Specialist, OSF
    Julia Mason M.D., Waunakee, WI; Pediatrician, Physicians for 
Social Responsibility
    Julie Szekely, Austin, Texas; Web Designer, Self-employed
    Julio A. Cartaya, Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey; Systems 
Engineer, AT&T
    Justin A. Faughn, College Station, TX; Student, Texas A&M 
University
    Justin Anderson, Amherst, MA; Student, University of 
Massachusetts Amherst
    Justin Ballou, Burlington, VT; EDI Project Manager, The 
Physician's Computer Company
    Justin Dugger, Olathe, KS; Student, Kansas State University
    Justin D. Whitney, Worcester, Massachusetts; n/a
    Justin Fletcher, Murray, KY; Network Technician, Murray State 
University
    Justin French, McPherson, KS; Student, n/a
    Justin Georgeson, Plymouth, MN; Software Engineer, Optical 
Solutions Inc.
    Justin Guerin, Colorado Springs, Colorado; Product Engineer, 
Atmel Corp.
    Justin Hall, Cincinnati, OH; Network Administrator, The Sant 
Corporation
    Justin Lee, Denver, CO; Senior Software Development Architect, 
Harland Financial Solutions
    Justin Miller, Somerville, Massachusetts; Senior Software 
Architect, Oculus Technologies Corp.
    Justin Wojdacki, Santa Clara, CA; Senior Engineer, Analog 
Devices
    Kanayo Orji, East Lansing, MI; Student, n/a
    Karen Mirande, Dufur, OR; Landscape, U.S. Citizen
    Karl Bellve, PhD, Worcester, Massachusetts; Research Engineer, 
University of Massachusetts
    Karl J. Smith, Portland, OR; Systems Engineer, n/a
    Karl M. Hegbloom, Portland, Oregon; Developer and Consultant, 
The Debian Project
    Karl S. Griffiths, Edwardsville, Illinois; Microcomputer 
Technician, I cannot disclose
    Katherine Smith, San Jose, CA; Scientific Programmer, n/a
    Kathleen L Smith, Seattle, WA; Retired, Seattle schools
    Kathy Cook, Los Angeles, CA, Registered Psychologist, Didi 
Hirsch Community Mental Health Center
    Kathy Evans, Antioch, TN; Web Designer, E.I.C.C.
    Kathy I. Morgan, Tok, Alaska; just a US citizen who uses 
computers
    Kaushik De, Arlington, TX; Professor, The University of Texas at 
Arlington
    Keith Bierman, San Jose, CA; Software Developer, n/a
    Keith Hays, Champaign, IL; Senior Support Engineer, Argus 
Systems Group
    Keith H. Hayden, Dumont, NJ; Web Site Developer, 
powersolution.com
    Keith Holland, Bowling Green, KY; Software Developer, 
Independent Consultant
    Keith Keller, San Francisco, CA; System administrator, n/a
    Keith K Gross, Madison, WI; Development support specialist, 
Wisconsin Department of Revenue
    Keith Reed, Detroit, Michigan; UNIX/SAN Administrator, CareTech 
Solutions/Detroit Medical Center
    Keith Wissing, Lititz, PA; Senior Software Engineer, IDenticard
    Kelly Cordellos, Santa Rosa, CA; Apple Sales Consultant, Apple 
Computer
    Kelly Hatcher, Austin, Texas; Senior Software Engineer, Vignette 
Corporation
    Kelly Hickel, Minneapolis, MN; Senior Software Architect, n/a
    Kelvin Kakugawa, Champaign, IL; Student, Self
    Ken Bowman, Mt. Pleasant, SC; IT Manager, Quovadx
    Ken Conrad, Dayton, OH; Network Analyst, Motoman, Inc.
    Kendall Bailey, De Pere, WI; Software Engineer, Schneider 
National
    Kendall whitlatch, Duvall, Washington; IT Consultant/Software 
Engineer, Grendel Industries
    Ken Engel, Berkeley, CA; Software Engineer, member, Tau Beta Pi 
National Engineering Honor Society--;tbp.org
    Ken Fox, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Programmer, Ford Motor Company
    Ken Horton, Indian Harbour Beach, FL; Developer, ImageLinks
    Ken Kelley, Charlottesville, VA; Software Engineer, n/a
    Ken Klavonic, Concord, NC; Systems Admin, Wachovia
    Ken Kumayama, Glendale, Arizona; System Administrator, n/a
    Ken Martin, Woodinville, WA; Software Engineer, n/a
    Ken McKee, Hillsborough, NC; Analyst Programmer, Duke University 
Medical Center
    Kenneth Badertscher, San Jose, CA; Technical Yahoo!, Yahoo! 
Personals
    Kenneth Bromberg, Garden City, NY; College Lab Technician, City 
University of New York Graduate Center
    Kenneth E McFarling, Portland, Oregon; Software Engineer, n/a
    Kenneth Eschrich, Branford, CT; Student, Worcester Polytechnic 
Institute
    Kenneth J. Hendrickson, Tucson, AZ; Principal Engineer, Raytheon 
Missile Systems
    Kenneth J. Lund, Houston, Texas; Hardware Engineer IV COMPAQ
    Kenneth M. De Tullio, Huntsville, AL; Programmer, BRC
    Kenneth Miller, San Francisco, California; Associate Professor, 
University of California
    Kenneth V. Cuvelier, Canby, OR; Computer Consultant, Becken 
Computer Services
    Kenneth W. Cochran, Alexander City, Alabama; Consultant, 
Independant
    Kenneth W. Melvin, East Bend, North Carolina; Citizen, United 
States of America
    Kenn Murrah, Dallas, Texas; Webmaster, Ussery Printing
    Ken Settle, Newport Beach, CA; Software Developer, TransMedia 
Productions, Inc.
    Kent Benedict, Iowa City, Iowa; Systems Administrator, n/a
    Kent Peterson, Charlottesville, Virginia; Senior Quality 
Assurance Analyst, n/a
    Kent Pirkle, Atlanta, Georgia; Systems Administrator, n/a
    Kent Schumacher, Minneapolis, MN; IS Manager, Structural Wood 
Corporation
    Kermit Woodall, Glen Allen, VA; President, Nova Design
    Kerry Crouse, Nashua, NH; Owner/Engineer, Crouse Consulting
    Kevin A. Sesock, Stillwater, Oklahoma; Deskside Computer Support 
Specialist, Oklahoma State University
    Kevin D. Clark, Nottingham, NH; Software Engineer, n/a
    Kevin Dickson, Billerica, MA; Software Engineer, Raytheon
    Kevin H. Devin, Bothell, WA; Systems Administrator, n/a
    Kevin Hostelley, Cleveland, OH; Technology Master, KeyBank
    Kevin Hutson, Austin, TX; Programmer, Insomniac's Lounge
    Kevin J. Butler, Spanish Fork, Utah; Software Architect, Campus 
Pipeline
    Kevin Martin, Tuxedo Park, NY; Owner, Brass Cannon Consulting
    Kevin McFadden, McLean, VA; consultant, n/a
    Kevin Michael Pansky, Cleveland, OH; Student, Northwestern 
University
    Kevin Morgan, Los Angeles, CA; Consultant, Self-employed
    Kevin Nelson, St. Louis, MO; Senior SMC Staff, Cybercon

[[Page 28334]]

    Kevin O'Connor, Ardsley, NY; Systems Analyst, McGraw-Hill
    Kevin O'Mahoney, Palo Alto, California; Senior Software / 
Hardware Engineer, n/a
    Kevin Oster, Milpitas, CA; Software Engineer, Member, ACM
    Kevin Rayhons, San Antonio, TX; Multimedia Specialist, Southwest 
Research Institute
    Kevin Sonney, Pittsboro, NC; Programmer, webslingerZ, Inc
    Kevin Swearingen, Saint Charles, Missouri; President, Reliable 
Group
    Kevin White, Newbern, TN; Computer Support Technician, 
Collierville Municipal Government
    Kevin Wright, Dallas, TX; Systems Technician, Neiman Marcus
    Khouri Giordano, Melville, NY; Software Technology Researcher, 
Nikon
    Kimberly A. Brosan, Irmo, SC; Library Media Specialist, Mid-
Carolina High School
    Kimberly Claffy, La Jolla, CA; associate research scientist, 
Principal Investigator, UCSD, CAIDA
    Kimberly Menninga, Grand Rapids, Michigan; Research and 
Development Coordinator, The Composing Room of Michigan
    Kip Gebhardt, San Francisco, CA; Software Engineer,n/a
    Kip Manley, Portland, Oregon; Writer and designer, Freelancer
    Konrad Nagel, Santa Cruz, CA; Application Manager, SZ 
Testsysteme
    Kory Hamzeh, West Hills, CA; President, Avatar Consultants, Inc.
    Krishna Sethuraman, Sunnyvale, CA; Programmer/Analyst, SGI
    Kris Ktindworth, Urbana, Illinois; Database Administrator, Carle 
Clinic Association
    Kristian Kvilekval, Santa Barbara, CA; Graduate Researcher, UC 
Santa Barbara
    Kristine Sawyer, Castro Valley, California; Concerned Citizen
    Kurt Andersen, Liberty Lake, Washington; Postmaster, Agilent 
Technologies
    Kurt Anderson, Bangor, Maine; Info Security Assoc, Eastern Maine 
Healthcare
    Kurt D. Starsinic, Brooklyn, NY; Senior Software Architect, 
WolfeTech Development
    Kurt Overberg, San Francisco, CA; Analyst, KMDI Inc.
    Kurt Schaeffer, Houston, TX; Technical Support Representative, 
Larson Software Technology
    Kurt Yoder, McLean, VA; Network administrator, Sport & 
Health Clubs
    K.V. Moffet, Lancaster, CA; Owner, Offworld Press
    Kyle Davenport, Dallas, TX; SysAdmin, CompUSA
    Kyle Hasselbacher, Elmhurst, IL; Programmer, n/a
    Kyle Hoyt, Pinellas Park, FL; System Engineer, Raytheon
    Kyle MacLea, Norwich, VT; Graduate Student, Dartmouth College
    Kyle Mandli, Madison, Wisconsin; Software Engineer/Researcher, 
Mandli Communications
    Kyle McDonald, Burlington, MA; System Engineer/Programmer, Sun 
Microsystems
    Kyle Mesnard, Crystal Lake, IL; Student, University of Illinois
    Kyle Wheeler, Cincinnati, Ohio; Student, Ohio University
    Lamar Prosser, Charleston, SC; IT Coordinator for Ctr for Health 
Care Research, Med Univ of SC
    Lance Dryden, Astoria, New York; Network Administrator, 
Modelwire
    Lance Ivy, College Place, WA; Student, Walla Walla College
    Lane Weast, Fort Myers, FL; Programmer Analyst I, Lee County 
Clerk of Court
    Lanny Powers, Athens, Alabama; President, LANPOWERS Inc.
    Larry Groebe, Dallas, TX; VP New Media, Insider Marketing
    Larry Hammer, Williamsburg, Virginia; Network Administrator, 
Ecpi Technical College
    Larry McVoy, San Francisco, CA; CEO, BitMover, Inc.
    Larry Norris, Oklahoma City, OK; Director of Development, AFA 
eDirect
    Larry Sendlosky, Leominster, MA; Consulting Software Engineer, 
Storigen Systems
    Larry Smithmier, Cary, NC; Software Engineer, Oak Grove Software
    Larry Staton Jr., Winter Park, Florida; Paralegal/Economist, 
Holihan Diaz
    Larry Works, Charlottesville, Virginia; Network Engineer, n/a
    Lars R. Damerow, Oakland, CA; Senior UNIX System Administrator, 
n/a
    Laura Wick, San Diego, CA; Homemaker
    Laurence Mills-Gahl, Chicago, IL; President, Webfarm, Inc.
    Laurence Schorsch, Evanston, IL; Graduate Student, University of 
Chicago
    Lawrence Alkoff, Austin, TX; retired, n/a
    Lawrence Gohar, New York, NY; Sr. Server/Network Engineer, n/a
    Lawrence M. Brinley, Greenfield, IN; President/CEO, SOHO 
Solutions
    Lawrence R. Doolittle, Walnut Creek, California; Staff Engineer, 
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
    Lawson Whitney, Concord, North Carolina; Citizen, United States 
of America
    Lee Adams, Lake Mary, Florida; BOFH, Synergy Southeast
    Lee C Smith, Tyrone, GA; Regional Sales Mgr (Retiring), 
Plastican Inc
    Lee Glenn, Des Moines, Iowa; Software Engineer, n/a
    Lee Graba, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Principal Engineer, 
Honeywell, Inc.
    Lee M. Bernbaum, Midwest City, OK; Programmer/Analyst, self-
employed
    Lee Wenzbauer, Chicago, IL; Senior Consultant, DanielGraphics
    Lee Willoughby, Kansas City, MO; Web Developer, AP Network 
Services
    Leif Sawyer, Anchorage, AK; Network Engineer, General 
Communication, Inc
    Lei Zhang, Los Angeles, CA; Student, UCLA Linux Users Group
    Len Frazier, McAllen, TX; Systems Manager, Rio Grande Valley 
Publishing
    Leonard Park, Salem, MA; Sales Associate, Apple Computers
    Leonard Schrieber, PhD, Fair Lawn, NJ; Senior Trading Systems 
Analyst, n/a
    Leon D. Shaner, Dearborn, ; Internet Architect, Sun 
Microsystems, Inc.
    Lewis Vincent, Melbourne, Vic; Manager, eDream Designs
    Lex Mierop, Newbury Park, CA; Senior Software Engineer, Network 
Telephone Services
    Linchuan Liu, Mountain View, California; Student, University of 
California at Berkeley
    Linda Lawson, Phoenix, AZ; Flash Design and Production, n/a
    Lindsay Pallickal, Elmsford, New York; Principle, Guidewalk LLC
    Lion Templin, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Owner, LCR Systems
    Lisa Applegate, Pekin, IL; Network/Systems Administrator, Pekin 
School District 108
    Lisa A Uber, Highland Park, New Jersey; Consultant/Project 
Manager, Starling
    Lisa Corner, Princeton, WV; System/Network Administrator, n/a
    Lisa R. Bogue, Los Angeles, CA; System and Network 
Administrator, n/a
    Lisa Werner Carr, Dallas, Texas; Senior Content Developer, imc2
    Lou Glassy, Bozeman, Montana; Software Engineer, RightNow 
Technologies
    Louis Canaiy, Fort Collins, Colorado; Systems Administrator, 
Engineering Network Services (Colorado State University)
    Lou Miller, Washington, DC; Project Coordinator, Washington 
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
    Lucas McCauslin, Worcester, MA; Embedded Systems Engineer, 
Microwave Radio Communications
    Luc Lapalme, Sudbury, Ontario; Software Developer, Accutron 
Instruments
    Luke A. Kanies, Nashville, Tennessee; Infrastructure Architect, 
Caterpillar Financial
    Luke Crawford, Rochester, NY; Web Programmer, R Brooks 
Associates
    Lyle D. Vogtmann, Oak Harbor, WA; Pres., Whidbey Island Linux 
User Group
    Lynn Yuan, West Covina, California; Executive Director, i2s Inc.
    MacDonald Jackson, Corvallis, OR; CAD Engineer, Intel
    Malcolm Gin, Columbia, Maryland; Systems Architect, Member, ACM
    Marcel Valcarce, Hollywood, CA; Designer/Director, Pacific Title 
and Art Studio
    Marc Grubb, Roslindale, MA; Director, IS, Panache Editorial
    Marcia Baczynski, Jersey City, NJ; Member, New York Linux Users 
Group
    Marc Levine, Ukiah, California; Systems Analyst Programmer, 
County of Mendocino
    Marcus B. Sellers, Homer City, PA; Masters Candidate Biology, 
Indiana University of Penna
    Marcus I. Ryan, Ames, IA; Computer Engineer, Iowa Department of 
Transportation
    Marcus Porter, Falls Church, VA; Systems Engineer, National 
Institutes of Health
    Margaret Stephanie Leber CCP, Jeffersonville, PA; Chief 
Technical Officer, Matrisync
    Mario Martinez, New York, NY; Systems Engineer, Thomson 
Financial
    Marion Bates, Hanover, NH; Research Engineer, Institute for 
Security Technology Studies
    Mark ``Adam'' Baum, Elk River, MN; Software Engineer, 
Lockheed Martin ATM
    Mark Allshouse, Baltimore, Maryland; Student, Anne Arundel 
Community College
    Mark A. Lytle, Houston, Texas; Network Analyst, Phillips 
Petroleum Co.
    Mark Anderson, Chandler, Arizona; Component Engineer, Intel 
Corp.
    Mark A. Thomas, Germantown, Maryland; Owner, Play by Electron 
Games

[[Page 28335]]

    Mark Belnap, Pleasant Grove, UT; Software Developer, n/a
    Mark C. Bradley, Eden Prairie, MN; Senior Software Engineer, n/a
    Mark Clancy, Rochester, MN; Senior Analyst/Programmer, Mayo 
Clinic
    Mark Ericksen, Omaha, Nebraska; Software Engineer, n/a
    Mark Fasheh, Los Angeles, CA; Student, UCLA Linux Users Group
    Mark Gray, Atlanta, GA; Computer Systems Analyst, n/a
    Mark Greene, Concord, NH; Sr. Systems Engineer, Capital Region 
Health Care
    Mark H. Bickford, Portland, ME; Programmer/Analyst, n/a
    Mark Holbrook, Pocatello, Idaho; IS manager, AMI Semiconductor
    Mark Horning, Aurora, CO; Unix Systems Administrator, IBM Global 
Services
    Mark Jackson, Fort Collins, Colorado; Software Engineer, Shuffle 
Master
    Mark Jacob, San Diego, CA; Software Engineer, Sony Computer 
Entertainment America
    Mark Jaroski, San Francisco, California; Senior Software 
Engineer, World Health Organization
    Mark J. Horn, Charlotte, NC; System/Network Administrator, n/a
    Mark Juliano, Atlanta, GA; Unix Administrator, Autotrader.com
    Mark King, Sun Valley, NV; Graphic Artist, n/a
    Mark Kinzie, Baltimore, MD; Software Engineer, Johns Hopkins 
University
    Mark Martin, Rochester, New York; Experience Designer, Element K
    Mark Miller, Berkeley, CA; Student, Univ. of California
    Mark Mynsted, Lewisville, TX; Senior Application Developer, n/a
    Mark Nottage, Berkeley, CA; Systems Engineer, n/a
    Mark Parker, Salt Lake City, Utah; Lead Web Developer, Medicity
    Mark Plimley, San Jose, CA; President, Plimley Consulting
    Mark R. Andrachek, Jr., Richmond, VA; Concerned Citizen, n/a
    Mark R. Millsap, Potomac Falls, Virginia; Business Development 
Manager, Affiliated Information Resources, Inc.
    Mark Rottler, Indianapolis, IN; Owner/President, SLM Industries 
LLC
    Mark R. Ritschard, Loveland, CO; Director of Computing, Colorado 
State University
    Mark Rushing, Seattle, WA; IT Consultant, Orbis Lumen
    Mark Salisbury, Chelmsford, Ma; Senior Software Engineer, 
Salisbury and Salisbury Inc.
    Mark Schafer, Defiance, ohio; student, NSCC
    Mark Schweikle, Gilbert, Arizona; Student, Byte Rain Development 
Corporation
    Mark Shepard, Dallas, TX; Software Engineer, Consultant
    Mark Stevenson, Indianapolis, IN; Small businesss owner, n/a
    Mark Stock, Ann Arbor, MI; PhD student, U of Michigan
    Mark Stratman, Hoffman Estates, IL; Systems Administrator and 
Software Developer, EMC Capital Management
    Mark Swayne, Portland, OR; Computer Programmer, n/a
    Mark Symonds, Fountain Valley, CA; Systems Administrator, n/a
    Mark Tucker, Clifton Park, NY; Unix Systems Consultant, n/a
    Mark Wagner, Fremont, California; Database Administrator, IBM/
CrossWorlds
    Mark W. Alexander, Orlando, FL; Consumer, n/a
    Mark Whiteford, BaltiMore, MD; Network Administrator, WW PCTechs
    Mark wilson, Ithaca, NY; Student, Cornell University
    Marlene Morley, Cleburne, Texas; Linux Administrator, Hypernet 
Communications
    Marshall D. Lewis, Charlottesville, VA; Senior Programmer, 
ScholarOne Inc.
    Martin Middleton, Bridgewater, MA; Release Engineer, n/a
    Martin Slade, Pasadena, CA; Scientist, non-profit research lab
    Marty Altman, Orlando, Florida; Senior Scientist, SAIC
    Marty Paul Combs, San Francisco, CA; Systems Administrator, 
Techprose
    Mary Pat McDonald, Phoenix, Arizona; Educator, Cartwright School 
District
    Mary Peterson Hartzler, Alexandria, Virginia; self employed, n/a
    Matt Curtis, American Fork, UT; Software Engineer, Clearst0ne 
Corporation
    Matt Dew, Denver, CO; Hardware Engineer, SEAKR Engineering
    Matt Graha
    M, Lansing,
    MI; QA/Testing Lead, Group InfoTech
    Matt Hell
    Man, Urbandale, Iowa; Network Security Analyst, Principal 
Financial Group
    Matthew A.
    Miller, Ahahei
    M, California; Software Engineer, The van der Roest Group
    Matthew Barr, New York, NY; Syste
    Ms Ad
    Ministrator, Barr Consulting
    Matthew Bogosian, San Francisco, California; Software Engineer, 
Grand Central Communications
    Matthew Bohnsack, Ames, Iowa; Software Developer, bohnsack.com
    Matthew Caughron, Omaha, Nebraska; Co-Founder, Proteron LLC
    Matthew Conway, Cambridge, Massachusetts; Senior Software 
Engineer, i2 Technolgies Inc.
    Matthew C. Rees, Greenville, Rhode Island; Computer Programmer, 
n/a
    Matthew Goheen, Rochester, NY; Consultant, MRRC Consulting Corp.
    Matthew Hornyak, Pittsburgh, PA; CTO, rTheory
    Matthew Hudson, Seattle, WA; Network Security Engineer, AT&T 
Wireless
    Matthew Jenove, West New York, New Jersey; Software Engineer, n/
a
    Matthew J. Evans, Espanola, New Mexico; Owner/Operator, Oasis 
CyberCafe
    Matthew Jones, Fort Wayne, Indiana; Macintosh computer lab 
Administrator, Taylor University Fort Wayne
    Matthew J. Turk, Grand Rapids, Michigan; Student, Northwestern 
University (IL)
    Matthew Kerr, Walnut Creek, CA; Student, Saint Mary's College of 
California
    Matthew Luu, Santa Ana, CA; Helpdesk Administrator, Goodwill 
Industries of OC
    Matthew Manor, Valley Stream, New York; President, Kingmanor 
Enterprises
    Matthew McNeil, Pocatello, ID; Student, Idaho State University
    Matthew Patton, Springfield, VA; Network Security Officer, VGS
    Matthew Poor, Englewood, FL; Citizen, Venice Auction
    Matthew Radway, Rapid City, SD; Student, South Dakota School of 
Mines and Technology
    Matthew Ray, Austin, Texas; Software Developer, 360 Commerce
    Matthew R Burack, Ames, IA; Software Developer, Computer Data 
Services
    Matthew Reed, Seattle, Washington; Student, n/a
    Matthew Ross, Ephrata, Washington; Founder, nineinchnerds.org
    Matthew Sachs, Merrick, NY; Lead Developer and Project Manager, 
Zevils Software
    Matthew Sexton, Kirkland, WA; Design Engineer, n/a
    Matthew Strait, Oak Park, IL; Student, Carleton College
    Matthew Toia, Washington Crossing, PA; Student, n/a
    Matt Krabbenhoft, Austin, Texas; Graphic Designer, n/a
    Matt Leonard, Denver, CO; Consultant, n/a
    Matt Lewis, Sacramento, CA; Network Security Manager, WINfirst
    Matt Oquist, Nashua, NH; Software Engineer, Compaq Computer 
Corporation
    Matt Potosnak, New York, New York; Programmer, RiskMetrics Group
    Matt Pujol, Fort Collins, Colorado; Electrical Engineer, IEEE
    Matt Schmill, Amherst, MA; Research Assistant, University of 
Massachusetts
    Matt Vanderveer, Charlottesville, VA; Systems Administrator, 
Boxer Learning
    Matt Welsh, Berkeley, CA; Graduate student researcher, UC 
Berkeley Computer Science Division
    Maureen Duffy, Troy, NY; Student, Rensselaer Polytechnic 
Institute
    Maurice P., Buckfield, ME; Technology Manager, MSAD #39
    Max Bell, Portland, Oregon; Senior Systems Analyst, Max Bell 
Consulting
    Maxx Christopher Lobo, San Jose, CA; Network Architect, 
ArrayComm, Inc.
    Mayer Ilovitz, New York, NY; AVP, Citibank
    Melissa Grams, Appleton, WI; Systems Analyst, Airadigm 
Communications
    Melissa Woo, Champaign, IL; Research Programmer, University of 
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
    Meredith Dixon, Mannington, WV; Webmaster, Raven Days
    Meryl Newbern, New York, NY; Consultant, n/a
    Micah Cox, Kingston, TN; Lead Programmer, Ethereal Software
    Micah John Cowan, Mountain View, CA; Software Engineer, 
Transmeta Corporation
    Michael A. DeLuca II, Hatboro, PA; Web Designer, Psidonia.org
    Michael A. Jaskowiak, Centreville, VA; n/a
    Michael Alatorre, Los Angeles, CA; EIS Liaison Analyst, Cedars-
Sinai Health System

[[Page 28336]]

    Michael A. McLean, Raleigh, NC; QA Testing Engineer, Red Hat 
Inc.
    Michael Amster, Los Angeles, CA; Chief Technology Officer, 
WebEasy
    Michael A. Raymond, Eagan, MN; Software Engineer, SGI
    Michael A. Schupp, New York, NY; Senior Developer/Systems 
Architect, Crosslinks Systems
    Michael Barnes, San Mateo, CA; Software Engineer, Cisco Systems
    Michael Batchelder, Redwood City, CA; Software Engineer, 
Counterpane Internet Security, Inc.
    Michael Battle, Phoenix, AZ; Software Engineer, Motorola 
Semiconductor Products Sector
    Michael Bell, Pewaukee, WI; Programmer, n/a
    Michael Blakeley, Foster City, CA; Internet consultant, self-
employed
    Michael Bolen, Mishawaka, Indiana; Field Enginner, Service 
Express, Inc.
    Michael Bourgon, Fort Worth, TX; Database Administrator, n/a
    Michael Brauwerman, Chevy Chase, FiD; Software Engineer, OPNET 
Technologies
    Michael Buice, Chicago, Illinois; Graduate Student, University 
of Chicago
    Michael Challis, Oklahoma City, OK; President, NeoDigita
    Michael Charrier, Colorado Springs, Colorado; President, 
Charrier Consulting International
    Michael Cope, Richmond, VA; Photographer, Michael Cope 
Photography
    Michael Creighton, St. Louis, MO; Interactive Designer, Omni 
Creative Group
    Michael C. Schultheiss, Indianapolis, IN; CEO / CIO, Amellus 
Enterprises, Ltd.
    Michael D. Barry, Baltimore, FiD; Application Developer, n/a
    Michael Desjardins, Gray, ME/ Computer Programmer, n/a
    Michael Dill, San Jose, CA; Systems Administrator, Novellus 
Systems
    Michael Dinsmore, Gaithersburg, MID; MacGenius, Apple
    Michael E Brown, Pflugerville, TX; Software Engineer, Dell 
Computer Corp
    Michael Fairchild, Ventura, CA; n/a
    Michael Fair, Los Angeles; Member, linuxatlax.org
    Michael F. Klein, Palo Alto, CA; Engineer and Domain 
Administrator, n/a
    Michael Fox, Seattle, Washington; Software Engineer, Self
    Michael Galloway, Lenoir City, TN; System Engineer, Oak Ridge 
National Lab
    Michael Granger, Lakewood, CO; Architect, The FaerieMUD 
Consortium
    Michael Guymon, New York, NY; Systems Architect, Igicom
    Michael Hagedorn, Houston, Tx; Sr Software Engineer, Pentasafe, 
Inc
    Michael Heyes, Fort Wayne, Indiana; Electrical Engineer, Lincoln 
Foodseervice Products
    Michael Hnatko, Syracuse, NY; Student, Syracuse University
    Michael Hollander, San Francisco, CA; Software Engineer, 
Intraspect Software
    Michael Houda, Soquel, CA; Senior Engineering Technician, CSJ/
DPW/D&C
    Michael Hrubik, Norton, Ohio; Student, The University of Akron
    Michael Isaac Jones, Columbus, Ohio; Computer Science Student, 
The Ohio State University
    Michael Jennings, Portland, OR; Business Owner, Futurepower(R) 
Computer Systems
    Michael J. Manning, London, Ohio; Software Engineer, n/a
    Michael J Myers, Manchester, PA; Sr Applications Developer, PA 
State Employee's Retirement System
    Michael J. O'Donnell, Chicago, Illinois; Professor in Computer 
Science, The University of Chicago
    Michael Jones, Ruckersville, VA; Java Programmer, Boxerlearning
    Michael J. Porter, Newark, DE; Senior Systems Programmer, 
University of Delaware
    Michael King, Wheeling, Illinois; QA Software Tester, Zebra 
Technologies
    Michael Klein, Hermosa Beach, CA; Chief Architect, Greatmark 
Software
    Michael Komarnitsky, Boulder, CO; President, Komar Consulting 
Group
    Michael Kriss, Naperville, Illinois; System Administrator, n/a
    Michael L. Broggy, New York, NY; System Analyst, New York Times
    Michael Lee, Phoenix, Arizona; Cell Biologist, Environomics 
Southwest
    Michael Lewis, Fort Collins, Colorado; CEO, NicheStaffing
    Michael Logue, Asheville, NC; Business Owner (Partner), Earth 
Guild
    Michael Lucas, Saint clair Shores, MI; Consultant, Great Lakes 
Technologies Group
    Michael McConnell, Edina, Minnesota; Chief Architect, http://
info-sapient.sourceforge.net
    Michael McCray, San Bernardino, CA; Computer Technician, San 
Bernardino Medical Group
    Michael McGonagle, Chicago, Illinois; Owner, 
FoundSoundRealizations
    Michael McHenry, Long Beach, CA; Consultant, Rossum Technologies
    Michael Mirande, Dufur, OR; Videographer, Self
    Michael Monasco, Minneapolis, Minnesota; President, Cycle 
Software Services
    Michael Morrison, San Diego, Ca.; Software Engineer, Stonefly 
Networks
    Michael O'Neill, Holden, MA; n/a
    Michael O'Toole, San Jose, Ca; Engineering Director, n/a
    Michael Owens, Santa Fe, New Mexico; Systems Analyst, State of 
New Mexico
    Michael Parker, Los Angeles, CA; Software Architect, n/a
    Michael Peay, Murrieta, CA; IT Manager, RedZone Interactive
    Michael Percy, San Ramon, CA; Software Engineer, Portera Systems
    Michael P McGill, Bethesda, MD; Director of Software 
Development, HealthASPex Inc.
    Michael Poole, Reston, Virginia; Design Engineer, n/a
    Michael Remski, Merrimack, NH; Principal Software Engineer, n/a
    Michael R. Jinks, Chicago, Illinois; Unix Systems Administrator, 
James Franck Institute
    Michael Roberts, Bloomington, Indiana; Owner, Vivtek http://
www.vivtek.com
    Michael Roman, Ithaca, NY; Sr Systems Analyst, Cornell 
University
    Michael Sandford, Jacksonville, Florida; Student, University of 
North Florida
    Michael Shiplett, Ann Arbor, MI; Senior Software Developer, 
Cisco Systems
    Michael Sierchio, San Francisco, California; Information 
Security Consultant, Tenebras, LLC
    Michael Skora, Ann Arbor, MI; Web Master, University of Michigan
    Michael Spencer Jr., Council Bluffs, Iowa; Programmer/Analyst, 
Celebrity Personnel
    Michael S. Scaramella, Esq., Cherry Hill, NJ; Senior Partner, 
Scaramelia & Hoofnagle
    Michael Tesch, Minneapolis, MN; Software Engineer, Independent 
Contractor
    Michael Tomkins, Kingman, AZ; Consultant, VMSupport
    Michael T. Rankin, Walker Valley, NY; Software Support Manager, 
n/a
    Michael T. Scheidler, Greentown, IN; Unix/NT System 
Administrator, Delphi Automotive Systems
    Michael Warnock, San Francisco, California; Artificial Life 
Programmer, InOrbit Entertainment Inc.
    Michael Westcoat, San Francisco, CA; Software Engineer, n/a
    Michael Wimpee, Olympia, Washington; Student, Whitman College
    Michael W. Shaffer, Palo Alto, California; Network and Security 
Administrator, Agilent Technologies
    Michelangelo Grigni, Atlanta, GA; Associate Professor, Emory 
University
    Michelle Arden, Palo Alto, CA; Consultant, Arden Consulting
    Michelle Klein-Hass, Van Nuys, CA; Citizen of the United States 
of America, n/a
    Mignon Belongie, Redwood City, CA; Software Engineer and co-
founder, Digital Persona, Inc.
    Mike Cathey, Collegedale, TN; Network Administrator, RTC 
Internet DBA Catt.com
    Mike Dean, Cleveland, OH; Programmer, NBD, Inc.
    Mike Doherty, Cleveland, OH; Self, Self
    Mike Grello, Gaston, South Carolina; Principal Programmer, 
MaranaTha Software
    Mike Heath, Provo, UT; Software Developer, Terrapin Technologies
    Mike Hokenson, Green Bay, WI; Systems Admin, DCT Technologies
    Mike Lundy, San Jose, CA; Founder, Leland High School Linux/BSD 
Club
    Mike Schiller, Edgewater, MID; Electrical Engineer/Embedded 
Programmer, n/a
    Mike Schiraldi, Ashburn, VA; Research Scientist, VeriSign
    Mike Shupp, Los Angeles, California; grad student, Cal State 
University
    Mike Simpson, Atlanta, Georgia; Senior Technical Architect, Abel 
Solutions
    Mike Vondrasek, Fort Worth, TX; Senior Windows Engineer, 
CitiGroup
    Mike Wexler, Santa Clara, CA; CTO, TIAS.COM
    Mike Whitney, Austin, TX; Sr. Systems Analyst/Programmer, 
Motorola
    Miles Pickering, San Francisco, CA; Owner, 4by6.com
    Milind Rao, Atlanta, GA; Software Architect, Brickstream
    Mingyan Bao, Fort Collins, CO; Software Engineer, n/a
    Miron W. Neal III, Portland, OR; Instructor, Portland Community 
College

[[Page 28337]]

    Mitch Lee, San Francisco, CA; Software Engineer, unemployed
    M. Jamie Hejduk, Lexington Park, Maryland; Network Admin, 
www.memorabledvds.com
    M. Lisa Colvin, Nederland, Colorado; Disabled, Concerned 
individual
    M.L. McCauley, Dallas, Texas; President, Mtech Services
    Molly Tomlinson, Somerville, MA; Consultant, PeaceGeeks
    Mona T Magee, Tallahassee, Florida; State Worker, n/a
    Morgan Collins, Yakima, WA; Owner, Morcant Software
    Moses Lei, Falls Church, VA; Student, Thomas Jefferson High 
School for Science and Technology, Alexandria, VA
    Mukesh Agrawal, Pittsburgh, PA; Graduate Student, Carnegie 
Mellon University
    Nadia Pervez, Goleta, CA; Graduate Student, EE/CS, UCSB
    Najati Imam, Lexington, Kentucky; Masters Student, University of 
Kentucky
    Nancy Goroff Whitney, East Setauket, NY; Assistant Professor, 
SUNY Stony Brook
    Nancy Lehrer, Thousand Oaks, CA; Software Architect, self 
employed
    Nasser Salim, Albuquerque, New Mexico; Systems Administrator, 
Albuquerque High Performance Computing Center
    Nate Fichthorn, Nokesville, Virginia; Student, n/a
    Nate Sammons, Denver, CO; Senior Consultant, BEA Systems
    Nathan Bargmann, Bremen, Kansas; Lead Electronics Technician, 
Class A, Union Pacific Railroad
    Nathan Black, Madison, WI; Consultant
    Nathan Clegg, San Diego, CA; Software Engineer, MUSICMATCH
    Nathan Cohick, Quartz Hill, California; Design Engineer, 
(Advanced Bionics) Private Consultant
    Nathan Currier, Los Alamos, NM; Graduate Research Assistant, 
University of California
    Nathan Egge, Austin, TX; Software Developer, Trilogy Software
    Nathan Feltch, Provo, UT; Software Analyst, Dentrix Dental 
Systems Inc.
    Nathaniel Davis, Chicago, IL; Graphic Designer, The Creative 
Group
    Nathaniel Gray, Pasadena, CA; Graduate Student, California 
Institute of Technology
    Nathan Kunkee, Rolla, MO; Student, University of Missouri-Rolla
    Nathan Myers, Placerville, CA; Software Engineer, n/a
    Nathan Neulinger, Rolla, MO; Systems Administrator, University 
of Missouri--;Rolla
    Nathan O'Meara, Ravenna, OH; Student, SSCT
    Nathan Paul Simons, Ridgecrest, California; Owner, Hard Core 
Hackers
    Nathan Roach, San Antonio, Texas; Product Manager, small 
business
    Nathan T. Spillson, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Principal, Innovative 
Process Solutions
    Nathan W. Labadie, Detroit, MI; Sr. Security Specialist, Wayne 
State University
    Neal J. Murphy, Orinda, CA; L.Ac., n/a
    Neal Rauhauser, Omaha, Nebraska; Engineer, American Relay
    Neal R. Haslam, Ashfield, PA; Telecommunications Engineer, 
electric utility
    Neal Young, Cambridge, MA; Senior Research Scientist, n/a
    Neeraj Tulsian, Austin, Texas; n/a
    Neil D. Rosenthal, Schenectady, New York; Consultant, 
Applications Programming, James McGuinness & Associates, Inc.
    Nell Drumm, Polk City, Iowa; Student, North Polk Community 
School District
    Neil Getker, Cincinnati, OH; Network Administrator, HR ProFile
    Neill Haggard, Cary, North Carolina; Consultant, Self employed
    Nevin Lyne, Rochester, FiN; Sr Network Administramor, Gippy's 
Internet Solutions
    Nicholas Allen, Columbus, OH; Computer Engineering Student, Ohio 
State University
    Nicholas Bender, Norton, NA; Quantitative Analyst, n/a
    Nicholas Jones, Chicago, IL; Unix Administrator/Network Tech, 
DuckSystems/SignalCorp
    Nicholas Paulick, Oshkosh, WI; Mechanical Engineer, n/a
    Nick Fankhauser, Liberty, IN; Programmer, Doxpop
    Nick Grossman, New York, NY; Software Developer, n/a
    Nick Ienatsch, Orinda, CA; Retired, State of California
    Nick K. Aghazarian, Stockton, CA; Windows Software Engineer, n/a
    Nick Scott, Arlington, VA; Engineer, Veritect
    Nick Traxler, West Lafayette, Indiana; Student, Purdue 
University
    Nick Wesselman, Milwaukee, WI; Consultant, Digital visions
    Niels Provos, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Ph.D. candidate, CITI, 
University of Michigan
    Nigel Gamble, Mountain View, CA; Operating System Software 
Engineer, Afara Websystems
    Nigel Olding, Folsom, CA; Consultant, CDI
    Nino R. Pereira, Springfield, VA; Sr. Scientist, Ecopulse
    Nitin Borwankar, Oakland, CA; President and CEO, Borwankar 
Research Inc.
    Noah Gibbs, Mountain View, CA; Software Engineer, Palm, Inc
    Noel Holshouser, Plain Dealing, LA; Independent Consultant, n/a
    Nolan Leake, San Francisco, CA; Software Engineer, Radik 
Software
    Norbert Roma, Pittsburgh, PA; Research Scientist, n/a
    Norman Yamada, New York, NY; Independent software developer, n/a
    Ocie Mitchell, Pasadena, California; Software Engineer, Paracel
    Oliver Azevedo Barnes, Brooklyn, NY; Web Developer, self-
employed
    Oliver Stacey, Berkeley, California; Software Engineer, n/a
    Pablo Virgo, Middletown, Maryland; Student Tech Support, Earlham 
College
    Pamela Eachus, Manchester, New Hampshire; IS Operations Analyst, 
Syndicated Services
    Pamela Jasins, Ann Arbor, Michigan; GIS Technician, Washtenaw 
County Government
    Paonia J. Ezrine, Chelmsford, MA; Sr. Unix Consultant, n/a
    Partha Narasimhan, Santa Clara, CA; Network Architect, n/a
    Pat Augustine, Jacksonville, FL; Systems Administrator, n/a
    Patricia A. Rupe, Ormond Beach, FL; Senior Applications Analyst, 
n/a
    Patrick B. Gardner, Aiken, South Carolina; Owner, Offdwall 
Computers
    Patrick Corrigan, Tigard, Oregon; n/a
    Patrick Finnegan, West Lafayette, IN; Student, Purdue University
    Patrick Insko, Roscoe, Illinois; Principal, Insko Computer 
Consulting Group
    Patrick J. LoPresti, Cambridge, NA; Founder, Curl Corporation
    Patrick J. Santucci, Dayton, OH; Control Systems Programmer, 
MCSi
    Patrick McDonald, Boston, MA; President, Heed Technology
    Patrick McMahon, Newark, DE; Computer Information Technology 
Associate III, University of Delaware
    Patrick Moon, Somerville, Massachusetts; Substitute Teacher, 
Somerville High School
    Patrick Nichols, Norfolk, VA; Web Developer, n/a
    Patrick Scannell, Fairbanks, AK; Network Manager, USFWS
    Paul Belt, Franklin, MA; Networking Consultant, Self
    Paul Blair, Bluffton, SC; Software Development Manager, 
Databuilt
    Paul Bort, Euclid, Ohio; Systems Engineer, TMW Systems
    Paul Bradley, Portland, Oregon; Technology Specialist, n/a
    Paul Campbell, Seattle, WA; Tech Consultant, n/a
    Paul Cantrell, St. Paul, MN; Software Engineer, Retek Inc.
    Paul DeStefano, Beaverton, Oregon; Systems Analyist, n/a
    Paul D. Robertson, Alexandria, Virginia; Director of Risk 
Assessment, n/a
    Paul Eberle, New Prague, MN; Software Developer, BlueCross 
BlueShield of MN
    Paul Felts, Ventura, CA; Network Administrator, CSF
    Paul Forbes, Sunnyvale, CA; Network Engineer, Trimble
    Paul G. Allen, El Cajon, CA; Engineering Consultant, Random 
Logic Consulting Services
    Paul Gardner, Carlsbad, CA; Software Engineer, n/a
    Paul G. Ennis, Chapel Hill, NC; Attorney at Law, n/a
    Paul Herzog, Flanders, New Jersey; President, Gapware Systems
    Paul H. Lewis, Aiken, South Carolina; Government Documents 
Librarian, University of S. Carolina--;Aiken
    Paul Hoehne, Reston, VA; Manager, T4 Consulting Group
    Paul Howard, St. Joseph, Michigan; Sole Proprietor, Tomcat 
Robotics
    Paul Keusemann, Savage, MN; Software Engineer, n/a
    Paul Levitt, Brookline, MA; Space Systems Engineer, n/a
    Paul Lorenz, Rochester, NY; Software Engineer, NetSetGo Inc.
    Paul Lupa, Austin, TX; Sr. Systems Analyst, Motorola
    Paul Lussier, Lunenburg, MA; Senior Network/Systems 
Administrator, Mission Critical Linux
    Paul M. Dubuc, Columbus, OH; Software Engineer, CAS
    Paul Miller, Kalamazoo, MI; Systems Analyst, Bary County 
Telephone

[[Page 28338]]

    Paul Miller, Palm Bay, Fla.; Microsoft Support Tech, graphic-
mac.com
    Paul Notley, San Francisco, California; QA Engineer, Isomorphic 
Software
    Paulo Raffaelli, San Francisco, CA; Principal Engineer, 
ImagiWorks, Inc.
    Paul Rupe, Chapel Hill, NC; Software developer and computer 
hobbyist, n/a
    Paul Schreiber, Cupertino, CA; Software Engineer, Apple Computer 
Inc.
    Paul Stroud, Raleigh, NC; Software Engineer, IBM
    Paul Walmsley, Boulder, Colorado; n/a
    Paul Z. Myers, Morris, MN; Professor, University of Minnesota, 
Morris
    Peter A. Schwenk, Newark, Delaware; CITA-3, Systems 
Administrator, University of Delaware
    Peter Bakke, Portland, Oregon; Webmaster, Independent
    Peter Benjamin, Santa Monica, CA; Consulting Scientist, n/a
    Peter Boothe, Laguna Beach, CA; Software Developer, Gordian Inc.
    Peter DeWeese, Fairfax, VA; Developer Support Engineer, 
webMethods
    Peter F. Hollings, Atlanta, Georgia; Software Consultant, n/a
    Peter Flugstad, Iowa City, Iowa; System Architect, Icon Labs
    Peter Frischknecht, Clemson, SC; Net Admin, Empowering Solutions 
Inc
    Peter Gephardt, Columbus, Ohio; Engineer, n/a
    Peter Havens, Dever, CO; Senior Engineer, Level 3 Communications
    Peter J Scordamaglia, Holiday, FL; Senior Systems Engineer/
Developer, Pegasus TransTech
    Peter Kasting, Santa Barbara, CA; Software Development Engineer, 
Green Hills Software, Inc.
    Peter Luichinger, Fort Wayne, Indiana; Software Engineer, TEK 
Interactive Group
    Peter Marreck, Greenwich, CT; Software Developer, FactSet
    Peter Rinehart, Jupiter, FL; student of computer science, 
Cornell University
    Peter Schneider, Nashville, TN; Software Engineer, n/a
    Peter Tagtmeyer, Hamilton, NY; Librarian, Colgate University
    Peter Vessenes, Cambridge, HA; President, Ybos Corp
    Pete Smith, New Smyrna Beach, Florida; Electronics Technician, 
Bellsouth
    Pete Toscano, Fairfax, VA; Systems Research Manager, n/a
    Petre Scheie, St. Louis Park, MN; Unix System Administrator, 
Nextel Partners
    Petr Vicherek, Richester Hills, MI; Software Engineer, Eaton 
Corporation
    Phil Harris, Reston, Virginia; System Administrator, Cable & 
Wireless
    Philip Brogden, Tijeras, New Mexico; Senior Engineer, CWS
    Philip Brown, Lakewood, California; System Administrator, 
bolthole.com
    Philip Budne, Arlington, MA; Consultant, n/a
    Philip Hilton, Farmington, Maine; Student, University of Maine 
at Farmington
    Philip Sagstetter, Littleton, Colorado; Software Developer, 
Lockheed Martin Corporation, Astronautics Company
    Phillip Cox, Mesa, AZ; Network Engineer, Charles Schwab
    Phillip Jones, Raleigh, NC; Java Devloper (Contractor), IBM
    Phillip Karlsson, New York, NY; General Partner, Goats, LLC
    Phillip Mocek, Seattle, WA; Software Engineer, Internap Network 
Services
    Phillip Pollard, Lansdale, PA; Programmer, Diversified 
Consulting
    Phil True, M.S., Eagan, MN; System Architect, n/a
    P. Ryan Bergman, Des Moines, Iowa; Web Developer, GeoLearning
    P. T. Kornman, Notasulga, AL; Dr., Central AL Comm College
    P T Withington, Plymouth, MA; Software Journeyman, callitrope
    Rachel Slatkin, Atlanta, Georgia; Electrical Engineer, n/a
    Rafal Boni, Stoughton, MA; Software Engineer, n/a
    Ralph Stanley, Austin, Texas; Probe Test Engineering, Motorola
    Ramon R. Aviles, Montgomery, IL; Private citizen, n/a
    Randall Campbell, Fort Collins, Colorado; Software Engineer, 
Hewlett-Packard
    Randall J. Parr, Seattle, WA; owner, Temporal Arts
    Randall W Smock, Arvada, Colorado; Hardware/Software Systems 
Engineer, Storagetek
    Randolph H. Kramer, Bethlehem, Pa; Consultant, n/a
    Randolph S. Kahle, Tucson, AZ; President, Kahle Associates, LLC
    Randy Froc, Pepperell, MA; Software Engineer, Curl Corporation
    Randy Tidd, McLean, VA; Software Engineer and Private Investor, 
(Self)
    Raylynn Knight, Acworth, GA; Sr. Software Design Engineer, 
ChoicePoint
    Ray McVay, Arlington, TX; Sr. Software Engineering Specialist, 
Northrop Grumman Information Technology
    Raymond Ferguson, Madison, WI; NOC-Analyst, Berbee
    Raymond Kocian, Ridgefield, CT; Research Scientist, 
Schlumberger-Doll Research
    Raymond Leonard Haines, Columbus, Ohio; Support Analyst, OCLC
    Ray Tayek, Lakewood, California; programmer, nanosoft
    Rebecca Andrews, San Francisco, California; consultant, n/a
    Rebecca Frankel, Boston, MA; Software Engineer, MIT Artificial 
Intelligence Lab
    Rebecca Sobol, Boulder, Colorado; Editor, LWN.net
    Red Lloyd, San Antonio, Texas; Senior System Administrator, 
Veridian
    Rene Fromhold-Treu, Mountain View, CA; Consultant, Eike 
Consulting
    Renu Bora, Los Angeles, California; CFO, Linux Public 
Broadcasting Network
    Renwick Preston, Houston, Texas; Control Systems Specialist, 
S&B Engineers & Constructors, LTD
    Reuben Partida, Pasadena, CA; Specialist, Verizon Advanced 
Services
    Reuven Gevaryahu, Philadelphia, PA; Student, University of 
Pennsylvania
    Rev. Nicholas R. Robbins, Bay City, MI; ,
    Richard A. Eiken, Kansas City, Missouri; PC Consultant, Eiken 
Consulting
    Richard A. Milewski, Sunnyvale, California; CTO, RamPage.Net
    Richard Blumberg, Cincinnati, OH; Proprietor, Wm. Blake 
Fabricators
    Richard Brennan, Lockport, New York; n/a
    Richard Bullington-McGuire, Arlington, VA; Managing Partner, PKR 
Internet
    Richard Clark, Warren, MI; Field Service Engineer, MBM Computer 
System Solutions
    Richard Congdon, Rockport, MA; Senior Programmer, Harvard 
University
    Richard Copeland, Marietta, Georgia; Senior Systems Engineer, n/
a
    Richard D. Cravens, Columbia, MO; , Independent Consultant
    Richard Forno, Arlington, VA; Chief Technology Officer, 
Shadowlogic
    Richard G. Misenheimer, Los Angeles, CA; Senior Engineering 
Consultant, n/a
    Richard Harris, Pittsburgh, PA; Director of Technology, Anexinet
    Richard Jason Armstrong, Phoenix, Arizona; Network Systems 
Engineer, Technica Corporation
    Richard Johnson, Kansas City, MO; President, Northland Computer 
Services
    Richard Kelsch, Lakeside, California; Owner, RK Internet 
Technologies
    Richard Lesh, St. Peters, MO; President, Compass Genomics
    Richard Linville, Spruce Pine, NC; Distance Education 
Technician, Mayland CC
    Richard M. Atwater, Indianapolis, IN; Software Engineer, Charles 
E. Hill & Associates
    Richard Moore, Newark, California; President, DACS Software, 
Inc.
    Richard Murphy, Las Cruces, New Mexico; Mechanical Engineer, 
HTSI, NASA JSC White Sands Test Facility
    Richard Nicoletti, Southborough, MA; Software Engineer, 
Millennium Pharmaceuticals
    Richard Plevin, Brattleboro, Vermont; President, Richard Plevin 
and Associates
    Richard Ross, Oxnard, CA; Lieutenant Commander, United States 
Navy
    Richard Sawey, San Carlos, CA; Citizen, USA
    Richard Schumer, San Francisco, California; Auditor, Curtis 
Hotel
    Richard Tietjen, Guilford, CT; Publishing Technologist, McGraw-
Hill
    Richard W. Ernst, San Diego, CA; n/a
    Richard W. Lipp, Overland Park, KS; Information Systems Manager, 
List & Clark Company
    Richard Wynne, Raleigh, NC; System Administrator, AT&T
    Rich Coe, Milwaukee, WI; Software Engineer, n/a
    Rich Fuchs, Burlingame, CA; systems programmer, Research 
Libraries Group
    Rich Gordley, Des Moines, Iowa; Lead Programmer, Diversified 
Software Technology
    Rich Irvine, Minneapolis, Minnesota; SysAdmin/Senior Systems 
Consultant, ArchWing Innovatons LLC
    Rick Bradley, Harlingen, Texas; CTO, EastCore
    Rick Buford, Columbia, MO; System Administrator, CARFAX
    Rick Frankel, New York, New York; President, cyberCode 
consulting inc
    Rick Richardson, Wayzata, MN; Dad, Richardson Family

[[Page 28339]]

    Rick Romero, Waukesha, WI; IT Manager, Valeo
    Rick Thompson, Claremore, Oklahoma; Developer, aeonblue
    Rick Wittstruck, Lincoln, NE; Computer Programmer, self-employed
    Ricky Musci, Berkeley, California; Systems Administrator, The 
Nautilus Institute
    Rik Farrow, Sedona, Arizona; Security Consultant
    RL ``Bob'' Morgan, Seattle, WA; Senior Technology 
Architect, University of Washington
    R.L.Dempsey, Carrollton, Texas; unemployed, concerned user
    Roberta A. Kennedy, St. Augustine, FL; Applications Specialist, 
n/a
    Robert A. Cooper, Katy, Texas; Individual
    Robert A. Glenn, New York, NY; Private citizen
    Robert A. Jacobs, Omaha, Nebraska; Computer Analyst, Northrup 
Grumman Information Technology
    Robert A Salzman Jr., Beaverton, OR; Sr. Member of Technical 
Staff, Responsys
    Robert Bercik, Washington DC; Student, Computer Science, 
Georgetown University
    Robert Bingham, Westerville, OH; Student, Ohio State University
    Robert Brown, Northfield, Minnesota; Chair, Northfield Citizens 
Online
    Robert Brown, Northfield, MN; Chair, Northfield Citizens Online
    Robert Brown, Portland, Oregon; Network Manager, US District 
Court of Oregon
    Robert Bruggner, Notre Dame, Indiana; Student of CSE, University 
of Notre Dame
    Robert Burcham, Kansas City, MO; Software Engineer, Sprint PCS
    Robert Burke, Santa Monica, California; Programmer, University 
of California, Los Angeles
    Robert Bushman, Chandler, Arizona; Senior Software Engineer, 
Apollo Group
    Robert B. Wamble II, Ramona, CA; Software Engineer, SeaSpace 
Corporation
    Robert Chastain, North Plainfield, NJ; Senior Analyst, NA
    Robert Cober, Scottsdale, Arizona; Lead Developer, Scottsdale 
Insurance
    Robert Coli, San Francisco, CA; n/a
    Robert Dodier, Boulder, Colorado; Programmer, Interested Citizen
    Robert Eden, Cedar Hill, TX; System Administrator, n/a
    Robert E. Gomez, Highland, IN; Senior Technical Analyst, 
Neurosource
    Robert Elshire, Urbana, IL; Director, Illinois Genetic Marker 
Center
    Robert Fowler, Miami, FL; Network Administrator MCP, n/a
    Robert Freeborn, Hurst, TX; System Administrator, n/a
    Robert Gentner, Mesa, Arizona; Systems Programmer, Avnet
    Robert Grunloh, Tucson, Arizona; Support Systems Analyst, 
University of Arizona
    Robert Guthrie, Little Rock, Arkansas; Software Engineer, Acxiom 
Corp.
    Robert Helmer, El Cerrito, CA; Systems Administrator, Namodn
    Robert Heyen, Boynton Beach, FL; Strategic Consultant, The 
Network Institute (www.tneti.com)
    Robert J. Berger, Saratoga, CA; Chairman and Founder, 
UltraDevices
    Robert J Brenneman, Poughkeepsie, NY; Software Engineer, IBM
    Robert J. Wygand, III, San Francisco, CA; Founding Engineer, 
FileFish Inc.
    Robert Kelman, Long Beach, CA; Consultant, Deloitte Consulting
    Robert Kennedy, Austin, TX; Systems Analyst, The University of 
Texas at Austin
    Robert Klein Tribit, Lindenwold, New Jersey; Systems 
Administrator, Mobility Technologies
    Robert Langer, Two Rivers, WI; Engineer, Dramm Corp
    Robert Lasch, Trevor, WI; Software Engineer, n/a
    Robert Leary, Atlanta, GA; Internet Marketing Manager, n/a
    Robert Leland, Arlington, Virginia; Sr. Software Engineer, 
Free2Create
    Robert Love, Meadville, Pa; Systems Administrator, Stargate 
Industries
    Robert Lucas Marshall, Santa Clara, Utah; Webmaster, Developer 
Shed
    Robert Lusian, Spokane, WA; Software Engineer, n/a
    Robert Melton, Arlington, VA; Software Developer, Metro DC 
Police Department
    Robert Mena, Downey, CA; President, Quadratel Systems
    Robert Minvielle, Notre Dame, IN; Electronics Programmer 
Specialist, University of Notre Dame
    Robert Moeckel, East Wenatchee, WA; Track Manager, Pangborn Kart 
Track
    Robert Morris, Carrboro, NC; VP of Engineering, Eyetide Media
    Robert Murawski, Lyndhurst, NJ; Graduate Student/Research 
Assistant, Stevens Institute of Technology
    Robert Nesius, Portland, Oregon; Systems Programmer, n/a
    Roberto Rosario, Aguadilla, PR; Senior Integrator, Linux 
Solutions of Puerto Rico
    Robert Parnes, Mechanic Falls, ME; Author, consultant, n/a
    Robert P. Booth, Rantoul, IL; Owner, Booth Systems Engineering
    Robert P. Shaw, Cleveland, Ohio; Network Administrator, 
Cronosys, LLC
    Robert Ramsey, Iowa City, Iowa; IT Professional, Private citizen
    Robert Riemersma, Holland, MI; Quality Process Technician, 
Trans-Matic, Inc.
    Robert S. Iacullo, Mountlake Terrace, WA; Software Test Analyst, 
Self Employeed
    Robert Simmons, Ventura, CA; Web Designer, McVey Design
    Robert Spotswood, Houston, TX; Computer Consultant, Self-
Employed
    Robert Werckmeister, Chicago, Illinois; Web Developer, Nuveen 
Investments
    Robert Winburn, Eminence, KY; Retired, US Govt, Web Sales
    Robert W. Mielke, San Antonio, Texas; Project Manager, Rackspace 
Managed Hosting.
    Robert Woodraska, Sioux Falls, SD; IB Systems Administrator, 
Precision Computer Systems
    Rob Henerey, Williamsburg, MA; Web Developer, cogitowebworks.com
    Robin Cook, San Antonio, Texas; Systems Engineer, Edgewood ISD
    Robin Hopkins, Irvine, CA; Unix Systems Administrator, n/a
    Robin Miller, Bradenton, Florida; Editor, Linux.com
    Rob Rennier, Olney, IL; System Administzator, n/a
    Rocky Marquiss, Gillette, Wyoming; Computer Programmer, Campbell 
County Public Schools
    Rod Martin, Springfield, IL; Owner, Network 23
    Rod Nayfield, Denver, CO; Director, ``A Telecommunications 
Company''
    Rogan Hamby, Charlotte, NC; Assistant Manager, Public Library
    Roger Fujii, Burke, VA; Software Engineer, N/A
    Roger Humphrey, San Rafael, CA; Sr. Software Developer, OSI 
Software
    Roger K. Atkinson, San Diego, California; Sr. Operating Systems 
Analyst, Cubic Corporation
    Roger Partridge, West Chester, PA; software development manager; 
member, IEEE
    Roger Shaffer Jr., Chicago, IL; Electronics Engineering Student, 
DeVry Institute of Technology
    Roger West, Phoenix, AZ; Member, SourceForge
    Roger Whitehead, Greenville, SC; Computer Engineering Student, 
Clemson University
    Ronald L. Chichester, Kingwood, TX; Adjunct Professor of Law, 
South Texas College of Law
    Ronald R. Gage, Saginaw, Michigan; Owner, Linux Network Services 
(http://www.lns-saginaw.net)
    Ron Golan, Los Angeles, California; Member, lula.org
    Ron Hitchens, Lake Forest, CA; President, Ronsoft Technologies
    Rory Louis Federico, Lemoore, CA; Personnel Supervisor 
Accountant, US Navy
    Ross Peterson, Missoula, Montana; President, Trilocal Inc.
    Ross Youngblood, Chandler, Az; Applications Engineer, Credence 
Systems Corporation
    Roy James Milican, San Diego, CA; Network/System Administrator, 
Anonymizer Inc.
    Russell Hemati, Dallas, TX; Systems Engineer, Independent 
Consultant
    Russell Luzetski, Indianapolis, IN; Consultant, Praxis Solutions
    Russell Stoneback, Austin, TX; Physicist, University of Texas at 
Austin
    Russ Urquhart, Plano, TX; Technical Writer, Multigen Paradigm, 
Inc.
    Rusty Carruth, Tempe, AZ; Staff Software Engineer, Schlumberger 
T&T, Inc
    Ruthann Sudman, Rochester, MN; A concerned computer-literate 
U.S. citizen.
    Ryan Boder, Columbus, Ohio; Student, Carnegie Mellon University
    Ryan Breen, Durham, North Carolina; Director of Software 
Engineering, Porivo Technologies
    Ryan Gillespie, Newark, DE; Programmer, University of Delaware
    Ryan Koga, Stanford, CA; Programmer, UCSD
    Ryan Little, Augusta, GA; Training Developer, n/a
    Ryan Osial, Rochester, NY; Student, Rochester Institute of 
Technology
    Ryan Smith, Nashville, TN; Creative Director, Monster Labs
    Ryan Todd, Dallas, Texas; Network Administrator, EFO Holdings

[[Page 28340]]

    Ryan Yoong, Wayzata, MN; Student, University of Minnesota
    Sabrina L. Nelson, Castro Valley, CA; Freelance film/video 
editor, n/a
    Salvatore LaFata, Macomb Township, MI; Help Desk Coordinator, 
EDS
    Sam Denton, St. Louis, MO; Chief Systems Architect, WAN 
Technologies
    Sam Harrison aka Trey Harrison, Seattle, WA; Chief Software 
Architect, Treyharrison.com
    Sam Hill, Fort Worth, Texas; LAN Administrator, TCCD (http://
www.tccd.net/)
    Sam Mertens, Bethesda, FID; Software Engineer, n/a
    Sam Steingold, Boston, MA; Senior Analyst, Xchange Inc
    Sam W. Bowman, Valencia, CA; Electrical Engineer, Medtronic 
Minimed
    Sam Wynn, Fort Worth, TX; Senior Embedded Software Engineer, 
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics
    Sandra L. Bartlett, Ann Arbor, MI; Adjunct Assistant Professor, 
University of Michigan
    Sanjay Linganna, Baltimore, MD; Quality Assurance Engineer, 
eOriginal, Inc.
    Sarah Barwig, Pasadena, California; Software Developer, 
ArsDigita
    Scott A. Clausen, Edgewood, WA; database programmer, n/a
    Scott Ames, Corvallis, Oregon; Technical Support Representative, 
n/a
    Scott Baumann, San Francisco, CA; Creative Director, Heavy 
Graphics
    Scott Bell, Los Angeles, CA; Consumer, n/a
    Scott Call, Santa Rosa, CA; Network Engineer
    Scott Clark, Canton, MA; Principal Member of Technical Staff, 
General Dynamics C4 Systems
    Scott Disher, Overland Park, Kansas; Consultant, OnLine 
Technical Solutions
    Scott Dunbar, Kansas City, MO; Calibration Technician, Test 
& Measurement, Inc.
    Scott D. Webster, Bergenfield, NJ; Owner, Etc Services
    Scott Dylewski, Ph.D., San Jose, CA; Hardware Development 
Engineer, Agilent Technologies
    Scott Francis, Murfreesboro, TN; Systems Administrator, Rum 
Consortium
    Scott Francis, North Hollywood, MO; Systems/Network Manager, 
Tonos Entertainment
    Scott Furman, Menlo Park, CA; Software Engineer, n/a
    Scott J. Lopez, Chicago, IL; Unix System and Network Engineer, 
n/a
    Scott Lewis, Great Falls, Montana; Software Developer/Service 
Technician, Davis Business Machines
    Scott Lowe, Germantown, FiD; Director of Information Technology, 
n/a
    Scott Maxwell, Pasadena, CA; Software Developer, n/a
    Scott M. Brylow, London, UK (US citizen living abroad); 
Independent consultant (technology management)
    Scott McMullen, Dripping Springs, Texas; n/a
    Scott Meyer, St. Louis, Mo; Student, Fontbonne College
    Scott Parish, Arma, KS; System Administrator, Pittsburg State 
University
    Scott Rachlinski, Baltimore, MID; Software Engineer, 
Advertising.com
    Scott Rockwell, San Jose, CA; Member, QOS, LLC
    Scott R. Wilson, Ph.D., Corrales, New Mexico; Engineering 
Manager, n/a
    Scott Sesher, Raymore, MO; Systems Administrator, Sprint
    Scott Thomason, East Troy, WI; Consultant, Interactive Business 
Systems
    Scott Wilder, Denver, CO; Lead Java Developer, Digital Reliance
    Scott W. Starkey, Dayton, IN; Computer Support Technician, 
Purdue University
    Scott Yates, Des Moines, Iowa; Developer, Yatesframe.com
    Sean Bruton, Dallas, Texas; Senior Engineer, NeoSpire
    Sean McCune, Natrona Heights, PA; President, Red Hand Software
    Sean M Lentner, Norwalk, CT; CEO, Lentner.com
    Sean Perry, Palo Alto, CA; Student, UC Davis
    Sean Reilly, Richmond, VA; Chief Technology Officer, Appgen 
Personal Software
    Sean Russell, Bend, OR; Sr. Software Developer, Germane Software
    Sean T. Brann, Boston, MA; Principal, Bigcity Interactive
    Sean T. Canty, Kansas City, MO; System Intergrator, Sunset 
Systems
    Sean Woods, Philadelphia, PA; Senior Network Engineer, The 
Franklin Insitute
    Seon Lee, Potomac Falls, VA; Software Engineer, n/a
    Sergio Rey, La Mesa, CA; Associate Professor, Department of 
Geography, San Diego State University
    Seth Bjorn, Santa Ana, California; Network Engineer, Goodwill 
Industries of Orange County
    Seth Delackner, Brooklyn, N-Y; Programmer, Contractor
    Seth Gordon, Boston, MA; Scientific Programmer, Whitehead 
Institute
    Seth Herstad, Urbana, Illinois; EE Graduate Student, University 
of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
    Seth House, Salt Lake City, Utah; Student, University of Utah
    Seth Lytle, Somerville, MA; programmer, independent contractor
    Seth Russell, Ellensburg, WA; Student, Central Washington 
University
    Seth Taplin, Nederland, Colorado; Senior Software Engineer, 
DigitalGlobe
    Shane Kerr, Amsterdam, (US citizen, voting in Virginia); Senior 
Database Software Engineer, RIPE NCC
    Shane Williams, Austin, Texas; Systems Administrator, UT Austin
    Shannon E. Bock, Rio Rancho, New Mexico; Business Systems 
Support Analyst, Unisys
    Sharon Lake, Los Angeles, CA; Web Designer, n/a
    Sharon Stevens, Tucson, AZ; Student, University of Arizona
    Shaun Reynolds, Northfield, MN; Student, Carleton College
    Shawn Allen, Vancouver, WA; Software Engineer, self
    Shawn Campbell, Canton, Ohio; Student Network Administrator, 
Malone College
    Shawn Cornelius, Broken Arrow, OK; Network Engineer, n/a
    Shawn Dunn, Spring Creek, Nevada; Chief Cook and Bottlewasher, 
Dumpsterdivers.net, and Dunn Consulting, Ltd.
    Shawn Fogle, San Diego, CA; Aircraft Mechanic, USMC
    Shawn Kinzel, St Paul, MN; System Engineer/Administrator, Self
    Shawn McCarthy, Bowie, MD; Systems Administration Manager, n/a
    Shawn Yarbrough, San Antonio, Texas; Software Developer, 
nailstorm.com
    Sherman Wang, Los Angeles, California; Student, University of 
California Los Angeles
    Shilon Shoaf, High Point, NC; Vice President, Orion Adv and 
Design
    Shimone Samuel, Pacifica, California; Web Developer, n/a
    Shing Cheng, New York, New York; Graduate Student, New York 
University
    Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, Annandale, Virginia; Atid/2
    Shon Burton, Irvine, CA; President, Dataverse Corporation
    Sinan Karasu, Seattle WA; Electrical/Software Engineer, 
bozuk.com
    SI Reasoning, Birmingham, Alabama; Chief Technology Officer, 
Protection Products
    Sky Golightly, Capitola, CA; Systems Architect, Walking Thunder 
Productions
    Spencer Carter, Traverse City, MI; Lead Network Analyst, n/a
    Spencer Cathey, Colville, WA; video game developer, unrapt.com
    Sriram Kota, Miami, F1; Consultant, Independent
    Stan Gatchel, Dallas, TX; President, Process Sciences Laboratory
    Stan Novacki, Arlington, VA; Systems Engineer, n/a
    Stefanie DeFiglia, Washington, DC; Program Manager, n/a
    Steffen Hulegaard, Tiburon, California; President, TXL, Inc.
    Stephan A. Greene, Herndon, VA; Systems Engineer, n/a
    Stephen Bovy, Los Angeles, CA; Software Engineer, Computer 
Associates
    Stephen Degler, Philmont, New York; Director--;Systems and 
Technology, Allegheny Energy Global Markets
    Stephen Hughes, Dearborn, Michigan; President/CEO, Honeycomb 
Electronics, Audio and
    Stephen J. Wright, Madison, WI; Professor, University of 
Wisconsin-Madison
    Stephen Kemler, Cleveland, Ohio; Network Administrator, Athersys
    Stephen Kuenzli, Phoenix, AZ; Software Engineer, Motorola
    Stephen Martin, Murray Hill, NJ; Senior Developer, Binary 
Blizzard Software
    Stephen M. Deal, Perinton, NY; Systems Engineer, n/a
    Stephen Mencik, Gambrills, Maryland; Senior INFOSEC Engineer, 
ACS Defense (affiliation shown for identification only)
    Stephen Milton, Redmond, Washington; ISP Owner, ISOMEDIA.COM
    Stephen Moore, Tucson, AZ; Computer Programmer, University of 
Arizona
    Stephen Peters, Cambridge, MA; Doctoral Student, MIT AI Lab
    Stephen Ronan, Cambridge, MA; Managing Director, Community 
Technology Centers'' Network

[[Page 28341]]

    Stephen R. Walter, Menlo Park, CA; Associate Chief Geologist, US 
Geological Survey
    Stephen Saunders, Los Angeles, CA; President, Kodan Web 
Technologies, Inc.
    Stephen Scrivner, Boulder, CO; Software Engineer, Micro 
Motion--;division of Emerson
    Stephen Waits, San Diego, CA; CEO, Waits Consulting
    Stephen W. Hurst, Austin, Texas; Information Analyst, University 
of Texas at Austin
    Steve Colwell, Santa Barbara, CA; Software Architect, CodeWell 
LLC
    Steve Domenico, Louisville, Colorado; Webmaster, 
wildwoodguitars.com
    Steve Feldman, Newark, NJ; System Administrator, University of 
Medicine and Dentistry of NJ
    Steve Fox, Rochester, MN; Software Engineer, IBM
    Steve Guerrero, San Francisco, California; concerned citizen, n/
a
    Steve Johns, Greenbelt, MD; Software Engineer, Independent
    Steve Kann, Roslyn Heights, NY; Chief Engineer, HorizonLive.com
    Steve Kostecke, Providence, RI; Developer, Debian
    Steve Lindt, San Jose, CA; Application Engineering Manager, LSI 
Logic
    Steve Metter, West Carrollton, OH; Senior Architect, Digineer
    Steve Murtha, West Long Branch, NJ; President, Simulation Tools
    Steven Armstrong, Milwaukee, WI; Information Technology 
Consultant, Wisconsin Electric
    Steven Bryant, New York, NY; Lab Manager, The Juilliard School
    Steven Davis, Nurnberg, (originally Arizona); Solution Manager, 
T-Systems
    Steven Edwards, Nashville, TN; Software Engineer, (independent)
    Steven F. Crisp, Amherst, NH; Senior Principal Engineer, MITRE 
Corporation
    Steven H. David, New York, NY; President, Steve David 
Productions, inc.
    Steven H Snover, Pasadena, California; Deputy Sheriff, Los 
Angeles County Sheriff's Department
    Steven K. Sharp, San Diego, California; Sr. Software Engineer, 
n/a
    Steven L. Bratt, Brush Prairie, WA; Communications Services 
Manager, Vancouver School District
    Steven L. Salzberg, Ph.D., Gaithersburg, MD; Senior Director of 
Bioinformatics, The Institute for Genomic Research
    Steven M. Palm, Loves Park, Illinois; Software Developer, n/a
    Steven Nolting, Leslie, MO; IT Manager, SN Design
    Steven O'Toole, Irvine, CA; Software Developer, self-employed
    Steven Pierce, Kenosha, Wisconsin; Manager--;IS, ASF-
Keystone
    Steven Pothier, Tucson, Arizona; Senior Scientist, SAIC
    Steven Spencer-Priebe, Crofton, MD; Telecom System Engineer, 
Science Applications International Corporation
    Steven Thibault, Beverly, MA; Consultant in Engineering Systems, 
FM Global Insurance
    Steven Thomas, Boyton Beach, FL; IT Consultant, eDiets.com
    Steve Wahl, Chanhassen, MN; Software Engineer, n/a
    Stuart D. Pompian, Hanover, N-H; VP, Dartware, LLC
    Stuart Levy, Champaign, IL; Sr. Research Programmer, University 
of Illinois
    Stuart Schneider, Portland, OR; Contractor, n/a
    Sudhir Kumar, Ashburn, VA; Principal Member of Technical Staff, 
Portal Software
    Suman Karamched, Norcross, GA; PDM Consultant, n/a
    Susan Farrell, Portland, OR; User Experience Specialist, ACM
    Sylvester La Blanc, Anaheim. CA; Sr. Software Engineer, Anamex 
Corp.
    Tara Andrews, Somerville, MA; Systems Engineer, Akamai 
Technologies
    Tara de Wet, Tallahassee, FL; Student, n/a
    Ted Chiang, Bellevue, WA; technical writer, (self-employed)
    Ted Grzesik, Goffstown, N-H; Principal Software Engineer, i2 
Technologies, Inc.
    Ted Nitz, Santa Cruz, CA; Network Administrator, APT 
Technologies Inc.
    Ted Wright, Cleveland, Ohio; Engineer, NASA
    Teresa L. Beumeler, Raleigh, NC; Accounting Assistant, Wright 
Construction Company
    Terrance C. Hansen, Sandy, Utah; Software Designer/Developer, n/
a
    Terrence Egan, Cupertino, CA; Independent Software Developer, 
Geodesic Tripoint
    Terry Badger, Paso Robles, CA; Computer Technician, Cal Poly San 
Luis Obispo
    Terry Hibdon, Grandville, MI; Teacher, n/a
    Terry Melton, Hoboken, NJ; Network Administrator, Engineering 
Information
    Thack Douglas, Denver, CO; senior network administrator, gambro 
bct
    Thaddeus Selden, Fredericksburg, VA; Scientist, Navsea
    Theodore A. Jump, Austin, Texas; Senior Software Engineer, 
NewsStand
    Theodore J. Allen, Geneva, New York; Assistant Professor of 
Physics, Hobart & William Smith Colleges
    Theodore J Oliver, Tucson, Arizona; Database Administrator/
System Administrator, Desert Archaeology
    Thomas A. Brown, San Diego, CA; Retired
    Thomas Bohmbach, Jr., Minneapolis, FIN; Senior Software 
Engineer, MLT Vacations, Inc.
    Thomas Bradford Smith, El Paso, Texas; President/CEO, Southwest-
Technology Inc.
    Thomas Gabriel von Schwerdtner, Wheaton, MD; Web Designer/Web 
Applications Programmer, n/a
    Thomas G. Moertel, Pittsburgh, PA; President, Moertel Consulting
    Thomas J. Mather, New York City, NY; Software Developer, 
Longitude
    Thomas J. Philpot, Houston, Texas; Software Engineer, IBM
    Thomas J. Teters, Ft. Collins, CO; Internet Tech., The Galactic 
WareHouse
    Thomas K. Egan, Altoona, PA; Programmer and Web Designer, 
Liquidbinary
    Thomas Malone, Long Beach, NY; Manager of IT Systems and 
Administration, Lancer Insurance Company
    Thomas McElroy, Morrisville, NC; Staff Software Engineer, n/a
    Thomas Parker, Burke, VA; Technology consultant, n/a
    Thomas P Mensch, Oakland, CA; Contracting Programmer, 
Independant
    Thomas P. Taggart, State College, PA; College Student, Penn 
State University
    Thomas R. Corbin, Fairfax, VA; CTO, SamSix
    Thomas Smith, West Lafayette, IN; Developer, Debian
    Thomas Warnock, Syracuse, New York; Senior Software Engineer, 
AppliedTheory Corp.
    Thomas Wiest, Orem, Utah; n/a
    Thom Dieterich, Lynnwood, WA; Software Engineer, n/a
    Tim Anderson, Walnut Creek, CA; President, T. Anderson 
Associates, Inc.
    Tim Curtin, Essex Junction, VT; Test Engineer, IBM
    Tim Kennedy, Tewksbury, MA; Sr. Hardware Design Engineer, Avid 
Technology, Inc.
    Tim McClarren, San Francisco, CA; n/a
    Tim O'Brien, Evanston, IL; Software Engineer, n/a
    Timothy Basham, Bloomington, IL; Senior Programmer, AutoSafe 
Intl.
    Timothy E. Jedlicka, Glen Ellyn, IL; Network Entomologist, US 
Citizen
    Timothy E. Miller, Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Research 
Assistant, Vanderbilt University Physics Department
    Timothy Gray, Rosevelt Park, Michigan; I.S. Specialist, Gray 
Technologies
    Timothy H. Clapin, Laurel, MD; Systems Administrator, n/a
    Timothy J. Stegner, Bolton, MA; Senior Systems Engineer, 
Computer Corporation of America
    Timothy J. Wood, Seattle, WA; Vice President, Omni Development
    Timothy Kuo, Sterling, VA; Engineer, Orbital Sciences Corp.
    Timothy MacDonald, Houston, Texas; Unix Administrator, Houston 
Information Team
    Timothy Musson, Cleveland; Software Engineer, Zin Technologies
    Timothy P. Egbert, J.D., Ph.D., Salt Lake City, Utah; Senior 
Software Developer, n/a
    Timothy R. Butler, St. Peters, MO; Chairman & CEO, Universal 
Networks (www.uninetsolutions.com)
    Timothy Wall, Boston, MA; Director of Software Development, 
Oculus Technologies
    Timothy W. Lewis, Toledo, OH; Computer Science Student, 
University of Toledo
    Tim Sirianni, Cottage Grove, MN; SGI
    Tim Thomas, Anchorage, AK; Editor, The Communique, Alaska Apple 
User Group
    Tim Uckun, Missoula, MT; IT Director, USIS
    Todd A. Mizukami, Alpharetta, GA; NOC Manager, America Online
    Todd Chatman, Urbana, IL; Graduate Student, University of 
Illinois
    Todd Eshler, Blacksburg, Virginia; Computer Engineering Graduate 
Research Assistant, Virginia Tech
    Todd Flinders, Sacramento, California; System Software 
Specialist, California Department of Justice
    Todd Hanson, Madison, WI; Software Engineer, Luhata Group

[[Page 28342]]

    Todd Johnson, Evansville, IN; Unix Specialist, OneStar Long 
Distance
    Todd Lamothe, Boston, MA; Student, n/a
    Todd Lawson, Phoenix, Arizona; Attorney at Law, n/a
    Todd Sackett, San Francisco, CA; Software QA Engineer, n/a
    Todd Warner, Durham, NC; Software Engineer, Red Hat Inc.
    Tod Schmidt, Falls Church, VA; Network Engineer, Cable and 
Wireless
    Tom Arons, Davis, CA; Programmer/Analyst, University of 
California
    Tom Barclay, Long Beach, CA; Systems Analyst, PacifiCare Health 
Systems
    Tom Burton, Seward, AK; Student, Alaska Vocational Technical 
Center
    Tom B. Younker, Decatur, GA; Owner/Member, Dare Computer, LLC
    Tom Callaway, Durham, NC; Software Engineer, Red Hat
    Tom Cloud, Jamestown, RI; Senior Software Engineer, Healthcare 
Automation
    Tom Emmons, Chicago, IL; Technology Architect, Confirmative 
Technologies
    Tom Howland, San Jose, CA; Computer Scientist, n/a
    Tommy M. McGuire, Austin, TX; Graduate Student, Dept. of Comp. 
Sci., UT Austin
    Tom Phoenix, Portland, Oregon; Perl Mentor, Stonehenge 
Consulting Services
    Tom Rauschenbach, Peterborough, New Hampshire; Computer 
Programmer, U.S. citizen
    Tom Raymond, Wausau, WI; Programmer/Analyst, Eastbay
    Tom Rockwell, Lansing, MI; Graduate Student, Michigan State U.
    Tom Scott, Bowling Green, Ohio; President, Vedatel
    Tom Vanderpool, Kansas City, Mo; email administrator, n/a
    Tom Voorheis, Ann Arbor, MI; Student, n/a
    Tony Beauregard, San Antonio, TX; Manager, ISTI
    Tony Duckett, Herndon, VA; System Administrator, n/a
    Torleiv Ringer, Saint Paul, Minnesota; System Administrator, n/a
    Toshi Isogai, Centennial, Co; Hardware Engineer, SEAKR 
Engineering
    Tracy Budd, Arlington, VA; Senior Software Engineer, Exadata 
Analytics
    Trammell Hudson, Bethesda, Maryland; CEO, Rotomotion Corporation
    Travis J. Eckman, Jamestown, New York; Network Administrator, 
Allied Fire Protection Systems
    Travis Morga, Shawnee Mission, KS; Systems/Network Engineer, CIO 
Inc.
    Trever Furnish, Indianapolis, Indiana; Unix Administrator, Herff 
Jones
    Trevin Beattie, West Hollywood, CA; Software Developer, n/a
    Trevor Johnson, Gardena, California; Software Engineer; 
Contributor, FreeBSD Project
    Trey Merrell, Newberg, OR; Programmer, Student
    Troy D. Smith, Chicago, IL; Software Developer, Shoptalk
    Troy Gutman, Lexington, KY; Programmer, Wyncom, Inc.
    T. Shannon Gilvary, Union Beach, New Jersey; n/a
    Tyler Palmer, Lawrence, Kansas; Software Architect/Network 
Administrator, DesignLab
    Ty Norton, Redmond, Washington; Network Administrator, n/a
    Ty van den Akker, Arlington, MA; Java Developer, Oculus 
Technologies
    Valdis Kletnieks, Blacksburg, Virginia; Computer Systems Senior 
Engineer, Virginia Tech Computing Center
    Vance Shieh, Kingwood, TX; student, n/a
    Vartan Piroumian, Palo Alto, CA; Senior Java Consultant, Sun 
Microsystems
    Vasant Ram, Richardson, TX; Electrical Engineer, none
    Vaughan Johnson, San Francisco, CA; CEO, Vaughan Johnson Systems
    Vic Parekh, Los Angeles, CA; Computer Programmer, n/a
    Victor Didra, Quincy, WA; Graphics Artist, Quincy Valley Post-
Register
    Victor D. Odhner, Phoenix, Arizona; Programmer/Analyst; n/a
    Vijay Ramasubramanian, Manchester, CT; Aerospace Engineer, n/a
    Vincent Broman, San Diego, CA; Scientist, Space and Naval 
Warfare Systems Center
    Vitaly Luban, Mountain View, CA; Software Development 
Consultant, Los Altos Software Testing House
    Vladislav Imshenetskiy, New York, NY; Software Engineer, 
Micromuse Inc.
    Wade E. Masshardt, Madison, WI; System/Network Administrator, 
Wisconsin Alumni Association
    Wade Hought, Mission viejo, California; Consultant, n/a
    Wade Newbern, New York, NY; Copyeditor, n/a
    Wally Flint, Marina del Rey, California; Independent Software 
Developer, n/a
    Walter Ellinthorpe, Herndon, VA; Field Engineer, United 
Messaging
    Walter Josh Staiger, Akron, OH; Student, Case Western Reserve 
University
    Walter K. Zydhek, Charlotte, North Carolina; NT Administrator, 
Genesis II Networks, LLC
    Walter W. Asher, Troy, Tennessee; TAGMA of Northwest Tennessee
    Walter Wilson, Lexington, NC; Student-Computer Science, College
    Warren Ferguson, Cary, North Carolina; Senior Software Engineer, 
n/a
    Warren Togami, Honolulu, Hawaii; Founder, Mid-Pacific Linux 
Users Group
    Warren Turkal, Memphis, TN; Computer Science Intern, DotLogix, 
Inc.
    W. C. Ryan Lewis, Janesville, WI; Owner, Red Moon Computers
    Wendy Seltzer, New York, NY; lawyer and Fellow, Berkman Center 
for Internet & Society
    Wes Groleau, n/a, Indiana; Software Engineer, n/a
    Wesley Ferrel, Omaha, NE; Technical Engineer, Distribution 
Management Systems
    Wesley P. Taylor, Bellingham, WA; Database Programmer, Premier 
Agendas, Inc.
    Wesley Townsend, Guttenberg, NJ; Computer Consultant, Deloitte 
Consulting
    Wesley Watters, Pittsburgh, PA; Graphic Artist, n/a
    Wes Loder, Deer Lake, Pennsylvania; Campus Librarian, Penn State 
Schuylkill
    Wes Morgan, Grand Rapids, MI; Computer Science Undergrad 
Student, Calvin College
    Wes Price, Irving, TX; Systems Engineer II, Southwest Airlines
    Whitney Tracy Austin, TX; n/a
    Wilbur Liebson, Tucson, Arizona; retired
    Will Grzanich, Chicago, IL; Software Developer, Morningstar
    William A. Birch, New Ipswich, NH; Chief Techical Officer, The 
lyte Research Group
    William Barnett-Lewis, Madison, WI; Owner, Brain Candy Computing
    William B. Cushman, Ph.D., Pensacola, Florida; President, 
Poiesis Research
    William Biese, Kaukauna, WI; Systems Analyst, Claim Management 
Services Inc.
    William Birch, New Ipswich, NH; CTO, The lyte Research Group
    William Breen, Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania; Sr. Software Engineer, 
InterDigital Communications Corp.
    William Chapple, Ponchatoula, LA; Director of IS, n/a
    William Costa, Durham, NH; Information Technologist, University 
of New Hampshire
    William Croft, Menlo Park, CA; Engineer, MITEM Corporation
    William E. Shotts, Jr., Rockville, Maryland; VP, Technical 
Services, Media Cybernetics, Inc.
    William E. Stuckey, Indianapolis, IN; Network and Information 
Systems Coordinator, School of Liberal Arts
    William F. Mann, Sudbury, MA; Computer consultant, Self-employed
    William G. Thompson, Jr., Bridgewater, NJ; Chief Japple 
Evangelist, Saucon Technologies
    William Hubscher, Huntsville, Alabama; Media Relations Manager, 
Carleton Public Relations, Inc.
    William James Stewart, Charleston, SC; Software Specialist, 
Buist
    William Lamb, Aurora, Illinois; President, William Lamb 
Development, Inc.
    William Leddy, Alexandria, VA; Director, St. Stephen's & St. 
Agnes School
    William Lee Irwin III, Hillsboro, OR; Linux kernel programmer, 
IBM
    William L. Moss IV, Atlanta, GA; Digital Technologies 
Specialist, Atlanta Journal-Constitution
    William Riley, Kirksville, MO; Owner, R and D Technologies
    William Schneider, Rochester, Minnesota; Esquire, Retired
    William Warner, Seattle, Washington; Software Engineer, A large 
wireless carrier
    William Wise, Norfolk, VA; Manager, Cell Signaling Technology
    Will Secrest, Atlanta, Ga; IS Development Manager, Intercall
    Will Sergent, Lakewood, OH; System Administrator, n/a
    Will Symonds, Houston, TX; IT Consultant, thincpc.com
    Will Wainwright, University City, Missouri; System 
Administrator, Washington University in St. Louis
    Wilson Jones, Vinita, OK; Independent Programmer, n/a
    Winfield Hill, Stoneham, MA; Dir of E.E., Rowland Institute
    Wolfgang Rupprecht, Fremont, CA; Software Engineer, wsrcc.com
    W. Wood Harter, Orange, CA; Owner/President, Side-Eight Software 
(www.side8.com)

[[Page 28343]]

    Wyatt Bode, Lebanon, Pennsylvania; Manufacturing Information 
Systems Coordinator, Curwood Specialty Films
    Wynette Richards, Albuquerque, NM; Software Engineer, Los Alamos 
National Laboratory
    Young Hyun, San Diego, CA; Software Developer, San Diego 
Supercomputer Center
    Zac Feuerborn, Boise, ID; Consultant, n/a
    Zachary Erbaugh, Richmond, Indiana; Computing Support 
Specialist, Bethany Theological Seminary and Earlham School of 
Religion
    Zachary Weinberg, Berkeley, CA; Consultant, CodeSourcery LLC
    Zach Dennis, Columbus, OH; Resource Specialist, EPRI
    Zach Johnson, Minneapolis, MN; Student, University of 
Minnesota--;Twin Cities
    Zephaniah Hull, Atlanta, GA; Developer, Debian
    Please note: we are signing this letter as individuals, not as 
official representatives of the companies we work for or 
organizations we belong to.



MTC-00028574

From: Brian Bender
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    As I understand the proposed settlement regarding the anti-trust 
trial against Microsoft, little if anything is done to correct the 
actions that have been found anti-competitive. The agreement simply 
prevents them from continuing. This hardly seems sufficient to deter 
a corporation from cheating its way into a dominant position. There 
should be, in my opinion, actual peanalties paid for past actions, 
so that there is a real disincentive to engaging in these practices 
in the future.
    Consider this a ``no'' vote on the proposed 
settlement.
    Thanks for your attention.
    Sincerely,
    Brian Bender
    Pittsburgh, PA, USA



MTC-00028575

From: Lissa Levy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the proposed settlement is a bad idea. It gives 
too much control to Microsoft without concern for the consumer.
    Thanks,
    Lissa Levy
    Chapel Hill, NC



MTC-76

From: Ford, Jim
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am writing this last minute email to state my support for the 
Microsoft Settlement. I believe that this battle the DOJ has waged 
against Microsoft has been, at the least, misguided, and has 
threatened competition more than anything Microsoft itself has been 
accused of. I would also point out that most of the key players in 
this battle on the corporate side stand to gain greatly not because 
DOJ will eliminate a threat to their well-being, but because DOJ is 
beating down a competitor who has the pulse of the marketplace 
(which they often do not).
    Let's get this travesty of litigation out of the way and move on 
to something important!
    Jim Ford
    Network Consulting
    [email protected]
    (888) 969-;6699



MTC-00028577

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:42pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Sir:
    I am but a lowly consumer and cannot afford 10,000 dollar an 
hour lawyers.
    I have no way to file any briefs with any judges and would not 
even know how. I can tell you one thing. On my computer I cant even 
remove one small icon that has to do with the MSN network. I would 
not even begin to be able to come close to removing or using any 
other soft ware on my home PC. Now I know little of the law and have 
no way of sending this letter to the judge.
    I can tell you one thing micro soft has monopolized my system 
and that's a fact.
    Thank You
    Thomas F. Sullivan
    little guy consumer



MTC-00028578

From: Susan Kaltenbach
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the Department of Justice (DOJ):
    I would like to submit my comment on the issue of the Microsoft 
settlement.
    I understand that complainants against the settlement state that 
it (a) Does not correct Microsoft's ``anti-competition'' 
errors, and (b) Having Microsoft donate $1B of hardware, software 
and training is wrong because it perpetuates Microsoft's domination 
of the operating system marketplace.
    I cannot comment on topic (a) because I am not well educated on 
the complaints and resolutions of this large and complex case. But I 
can comment on topic (b).
    I am an individual who cares deeply about getting more 
underrepresented school kids interested in the sciences, and I have 
expended effort and mentorship to try to facilitate this. (In 
Washington state, ``underrepresented'' means racial 
minorities and ``first generation'' college 
students--;students who are the first in their family history to 
attend college. I personally am a ``first generation'' 
college student.) I've heard comments from those opposed to the $1B 
donation that these kids should receive Linux software, since it is 
``free'' and ``open code,'' and would help 
loosen Microsoft's grip on the operating system's marketplace.
    I want to make my message perfectly clear: These kids would be 
further ghettoized if the Linux proponents get their way. The 
Microsoft Windows software and applications model is used throughout 
the business world and is the dominant international software. To 
donate a fringe operating system like Linux would make these non-
employable.
    Not only is Linux useless in developing work skills for these 
kids, it is also extremely difficult to learn. Thus, only those who 
are supremely motivated--;such as young boys already pursuing 
the maths and sciences--; would make the effort to learn. The 
other, majority of students would avoid computing. And they would 
lack computer skills needed for them to succeed academically and 
professionally.
    The present paradigm is to introduce kids to Windows or 
MacIntosh operating systems. Then, the kids move to more specialized 
operating systems as the need arises. Unix and Linux are often used 
by academics--; not by the rest of the world.
    I therefore respectfully submit that the settlement agreement 
is, on topic (b), completely fair and valuable to the nation as a 
whole.
    Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
    Susan Kaltenbach
    Mercer Island, Washington



MTC-00028579

From: JJ Gifford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:43pm
Subjec: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    Attached are my comments re. United States et al. v. Microsoft, 
pursuant to the Tunney Act.
    I have attached two copies of the same document, one in 
Microsoft Word format; the other in Rich-Text Format. Either 
document should be readable on any modern PC using up-to-date 
software.
    Thanks in advance,
    JJ Gifford
    212 226 3462
    Jonathan Gifford
    117 Sullivan St., 5A
    New York, NY 10012
    [email protected]
January 28, 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
microsoft, [email protected]
re. Deficiencies in Microsoft settlement.
    Pursuant to the Tunney Act, I am filing these comments on the 
proposed resolution of United States, et al. v. Microsoft.
    My Perspective, Experience, and Interest
    I believe this case is tremendously important. As personal 
computers and the Internet have become increasingly important to our 
everyday lives, so too has the landscape of the technology markets 
become increasingly important. Not only will the outcome of this 
case impact the fortunes of a host of technology companies, but it 
will also affect how I and millions of others communicate with our 
friends and family, what choices we have for online services such as 
digital photography, and of course how much we and businesses spend 
on technology infrastructure. Once the government decided not to 
seek a structural remedy, it necessarily embarked on a course

[[Page 28344]]

of regulation. Regulation only works when the conduct prohibitions 
truly restrain anti-competitive behavior, and create a genuine 
opportunity for innovators to enter the market and compete in it 
based on their merits. Unfortunately, the Proposed Final Judgement 
(PFJ) presented by the Department of Justice and several states 
fails on all counts.
    Its results will be only a mild, temporary modification to 
Microsoft's well-documented behavior, with no lasting or significant 
effect on competition. Microsoft will retain its monopoly and every 
incentive to maintain it through any means not specifically 
prohibited by the PFJ. Consumers will continue to be deprived of the 
innovations and other benefits of a truly competitive market, in 
part because innovators will be deprived of the opportunity and 
incentive to challenge Microsoft's monopoly as it expands and 
evolves. Most importantly, America's technology industry will 
stagnate, as ever fewer competitors see any value in entering 
markets dominated by Microsoft.
    While I believe that many if not most Americans will be affected 
by the disposition of this case, I have a particular interest in it 
as a long-time technology consumer, entrepreneur, and enthusiast. 
Since 1980, I have used personal computers nearly every day, first 
as a hobby, then for school, and later for my career in the 
technology industry. In the early 1990s, I managed a small but 
pioneering desktop publishing department for a large advertising 
agency. Later, I joined a groundbreaking multimedia company that 
produced CD-ROMs for both Macintosh and Windows-based computers.
    Most recently, I was a partner in a successful Internet 
development firm, which designs and produces web sites and other 
interactive media for corporate clients. Having sold my share of 
that business, I currently consult for other companies in the 
technology industry.
    Definitions Are Critical: the Devil Is in the Details
    1. Most provisions of the PFJ depend on the definition of 
``Microsoft Middleware.'' Accordingly, we should expect 
this term to be well-defined, with clear boundaries and 
unquestionable meaning. Unfortunately, the reality is that it is 
vaguely defined, in language that grants Microsoft itself much 
control over what software it, and therefore the PFJ, governs.
    1.1. Definition: According to the PFJ (PFJ VI.J), 
``Microsoft Middleware'' is any software which:
    . is distributed separately from the operating system,
    . controls the user interface of the Microsoft Middleware,
    . provides substantially similar functionality as a Microsoft 
Middleware Product, and
    . is trademarked.
    1.2.
    Definition gives Microsoft control. So Microsoft, which has long 
stated its goal of incorporating browsing and other middleware 
functions into its operating system products, can exclude code from 
the Microsoft Middleware definition simply by not distributing it 
separately from the operating system, or even just by not 
trademarking it. Microsoft therefore will have enormous latitude in 
determining which new operating system features will be governed by 
the PFJ.
    Clarity Is Essential to Compliance and Public Confidence.
    2. The PFJ consists largely of vague prohibitions hobbled by 
numerous qualifiers and exemptions.
    For instance:
    Limited replacement of Microsoft Middleware.
    2.1. The PFJ requires Microsoft to enable users and OEMs to 
specify that Non-Microsoft Middleware be used in place of Microsoft 
Middleware (PFJ, III.H.2). This is a welcome change because it had 
previously been difficult to replace Microsoft's Internet Explorer 
(IE) without facing ``considerable uncertainty and 
confusion'' when IE would nonetheless unexpectedly be invoked 
under certain circumstances (Findings 171).
    2.1.1. Exemption for Microsoft servers. Unfortunately, Microsoft 
is exempt from this requirement when the Middleware Product would be 
invoked ``solely for use in interoperating with a server 
maintained by Microsoft'' (PFJ III.H). This may exempt 
Microsoft's current move into network services (''.NET'') 
from the judgement, inasmuch as such services communicate with 
Microsoft-owned servers. Microsoft considers .NET to be the next 
phase of the Internet, at last offering ``real'' 
applications and services. The first .NET service, Microsoft 
Passport, aims at becoming a cornerstone of Internet shopping and 
authentication transactions, and stores its data exclusively on 
Microsoft-owned servers.
    2.1.2. Exemption for proprietary technologies. Another exemption 
allows Microsoft to launch its own middleware when the Non-Microsoft 
Middleware ``fails to implement a reasonable technical 
requirement'' (PFJ III H 3). Microsoft will be able to 
capitalize on this loophole simply by emphasizing proprietary 
technologies not supported by Non- Microsoft Middleware. To the 
extent that Microsoft can implement features using proprietary 
technologies, it will better be able to exclude Non-Microsoft 
Middleware. A truly pro-competitive PFJ would encourage Microsoft to 
use open industry standards.
    OEM Distribution Channel Opened, But For Whom?
    2.2. The PFJ requires Microsoft to allow OEMs to customize the 
user's desktop by installing icons for Non-Microsoft Middleware and 
other products (PFJ, III.C.1). This is important to the PFJ because 
Microsoft has in the past excluded Netscape and other competitors 
from the valuable OEM distribution channel, often by contractually 
limiting an OEM's ability to customize the desktop. In addition, 
Microsoft has used its control over the valuable desktop real-estate 
as an incentive to get IAPs such as AOL to support Microsoft 
Middleware instead of competing products.
    2.2.1. OEMs lack incentive. Unfortunately, because Microsoft's 
Internet Explorer is now the market leader, there is today little 
consumer demand for alternatives to Microsoft Middleware. This makes 
it unlikely that an OEM would see much gain, if any, in installing 
Non-Microsoft Middleware. Such distribution may benefit the 
middleware developers, but would not greatly benefit the OEM.
    2.2.2. Customizations will be short-lived. This prohibition 
remains in effect only for a 14-day window starting after the end 
user first turns on his or her PC. Thereafter, Microsoft is free to 
re-arrange the desktop as it sees fit, including automatic removal 
of any non-Microsoft icons, e.g. by operating system features such 
as the ``Clean Desktop Wizard'' built-in to Windows XP 
(PFJ, III.H.3). So, any Non-Microsoft Middleware developers who do 
manage to secure OEM distribution could well see their products 
wiped off the desktop after a short two weeks.
    2.2.3. Likely results. These limitations beg the question: will 
any OEMs risk irritating Microsoft for such minor benefits? If they 
do, will the results truly be increased competition in the 
middleware market?
    General Rule on Sharing APIs.
    2.3. The PFJ requires Microsoft to share APIs used by Microsoft 
Middleware with ISVs, et al. (PFJ III.D). In its Findings of Fact, 
the District Court found that Microsoft had repeatedly withheld such 
information from ISVs, or used its disclosure as an incentive for 
``friendlier'' behavior, in an effort to preserve the 
applications barrier to entry (Findings, 84, 90, 91). 
Because ISVs depend on such information to develop software for a 
given platform, withholding APIs can limit or destroy an ISV's 
ability to create competitive products. Therefore full API 
disclosure should be considered a basic condition for any kind of 
effective competition.
    2.3.1. Only APIs necessary to mimic Microsoft's products will be 
disclosed. Unfortunately, the PFJ requires Microsoft to share only 
those operating system APIs used by Microsoft Middleware. This is a 
limited set of APIs, of use only to those ISVs who want to develop 
middleware products similar to Microsoft's. It does little to help 
ISVs offer features or innovations not already offered by 
Microsoft's products. Since ISVs typically must provide innovations 
to gain market share against an entrenched market leader, this 
requirement is unlikely to promote competition in the middleware 
market.
    2.3.2. Many APIs may be withheld on dubious 
``security'' grounds. The PFJ allows Microsoft to exclude 
any APIs the disclosure of which ``would compromise the 
security of a particular installation or group of installations of 
anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital rights 
management, encryption or authentication systems'' (PFJ 
III.J.1).
    . This is a surprising exemption because few security 
professionals believe API disclosure could weaken any well-designed 
security system. Indeed, the complete source code (a level of 
disclosure far greater than simple APIs) is publicly available for 
several operating systems and security-related products that are 
widely considered to be more secure than Windows (e.g. the Linux 
operating system).
    . Yet the inclusion of this exemption implies that there in fact 
are such APIs

[[Page 28345]]

whose disclosure could compromise security, and thereby opens the 
door for Microsoft to make claims about which ones they are. There 
is no basis for the Competitive Impact Statement's 
(``CIS'') optimism that security-related exemptions will 
be limited to ``keys and tokens'' (CIS, IV.B.5) of 
particular installations. Nothing in the PFJ's language so limits 
the exemptable APIs, and such entities aren't generally visible at 
the API level, anyhow.
    . With Microsoft's current push into network services (under the 
.NET moniker), we can expect privacy and security features to be 
suffused throughout the code, increasing the number of APIs 
Microsoft will try to exempt from disclosure. Indeed, Microsoft has 
just this month announced that privacy and security will henceforth 
be its main priorities.1 Associated Press, ``Microsoft 
Announces Strategy Shift'', D. Ian Hopper and Ted Bridis, 
January 17, 2002.
    Inadequate Enforcement
    3. The task of detecting whether Microsoft has violated these 
and other provisions falls to a three- person ``Technical 
Compliance'' committee (the ``TC''). This committee 
will have access to the source code and tools used to create 
Microsoft's products, as well as access to the relevant Microsoft 
staff (PFJ IV.B.8). In theory, the TC's oversight will prevent 
Microsoft from using technical strategies to camouflage non-
compliance, for instance by wrongly claiming that some important API 
should not be disclosed for security reasons. While such oversight 
may in fact be helpful, the TC is an inadequate, inefficient and 
non-transparent attempt to ensure enforcement of a Judgement that 
otherwise relies on voluntary compliance and enforces few penalties 
for transgressions.
    3.1. Severe employment restrictions threaten the TC's 
performance. The PFJ includes employment restrictions which will 
dramatically narrow the pool of TC candidates--;first, to those 
experts not currently working for Microsoft or a competitor, and 
then to those remaining candidates willing to forego any such 
employment for two years after serving on the TC. In so doing, it 
excludes nearly all of those experts in operating systems design and 
programming whom the TC most needs, since it will be very difficult 
to find any such experts not currently working for, and with no 
intention of working for, Microsoft or a competitor. As a 
professional in this field, I cannot imagine why a highly competent 
independent minded computer scientist would wish to serve on the TC 
under these circumstances.
    3.2. The TC will be buried under a mountain of technical data. 
Even if well staffed, the committee will have an enormously 
difficult task from a technical standpoint. Inasmuch as deciphering 
computer source code can be difficult even for the code's author, 
much less a new reader, and inasmuch as Windows XP alone consists of 
some 45 million lines of code2, this committee will have an 
enormously difficult task. Even with a large support staff, it is 
hard to imagine this committee effectively analyzing Microsoft's 
source code and fully investigating allegations of non-compliance.
    3.3. The TC cannot ensure timely remedies. Further, because the 
committee is prohibited from public comment (PFJ, IV.B.10), it will 
be unable to confirm any ISV's suspicions about Microsoft's 
compliance, nor could it force a timely remedy. Its only recourse 
will instead be to notify Microsoft and the Plaintiffs and to 
suggest a possible remedy. Therefore, an ISV suspecting Microsoft of 
non-compliance will not receive an immediate remedy, but must 
instead rely on a bureaucracy whose natural tendency will be not to 
pursue minor infractions. While such infractions may indeed be minor 
in the scope of the overall judgement, they would assuredly be of 
great importance to the ISV. 3.4.
    The TC's findings may not be presented to the Court or the 
public. Under the PFJ, the TC may not testify in any matter relating 
to the Final Judgement, nor may its work product and recommendations 
be submitted to the Court (PFJ, IV.D.4.d). Similarly, the TC is 
prohibited from public comment (PFJ, IV.B. 10). Thus, even if the 
TC's exclusive access to source code should produce evidence of 
deception and non-compliance by Microsoft, this evidence will not be 
presented to the Court. 2 BusinessWeek, ``Windows XP: a 
Firewall for All'', Alex Salkever, June 12, 2001.
    . In theory, the TC will report to the Plaintiffs, who may in 
turn report such non- compliance to the Court, and produce evidence 
of it via other means. This may well happen in the case of massive 
or severe non-compliance. However, what happens to the small ISV who 
suspects Microsoft of non-compliance, e.g. by not disclosing some 
necessary API? Such an injured party may report its concerns to the 
TC, and then hope that the TC is able to verify its claims, and 
further is able to convince the Plaintiffs to go to court on their 
behalf. During this bureaucratic pursuit, the ISV's business may 
suffer irreparable harm, or even vanish altogether (as has very 
nearly happened to Netscape). Were such ISVs to have access to 
Microsoft's source code, perhaps in a secure facility, they could 
investigate such concerns themselves, directly and immediately. 
Indeed, API disclosure would not be an issue in the first place.
    . The point here is that the nature of the TC is as the first 
step in a bureaucracy whose natural instinct will be to pursue only 
the most serious transgressions. In the context of a rapidly 
changing technology industry, this is a serious weakness in the PFJ. 
3.5. PFJ places enormous weight on third TC member. The PFJ proposes 
that the Plaintiffs appoint one member of the TC, Microsoft appoint 
a second, and then these two members themselves choose a third (PFJ 
IV.B.3). This structure places enormous responsibility on the third 
member, who can be expected to decide any disagreement between 
Microsoft's representative and the Plaintiffs'', especially in 
the context of the Voluntary Dispute Resolution process in IV.D. It 
is unclear whether the TC reports to the Plaintiffs only as a single 
unit, or whether a dissenter's view also gets submitted to the 
Plaintiffs. A better structure would at the very least make it 
crystal clear that any single member of the TC may report to the 
Plaintiffs.
    Also, creating such a fulcrum position in the TC makes this 
third seat much less attractive and harder to fill, and injects an 
element of politics into the TC that will distract from its 
technical mission and smooth functioning. Because the TC is not a 
decisional body, but simply a means to keep a watchful eye on 
Microsoft's compliance, it is unclear why Microsoft should have 
representation here at all. All of the TC's members should be 
appointed by the Plaintiffs, perhaps with the DOJ appointing one 
member, the States appointing a second member, and the Plaintiffs 
collectively appointing the third. 3.6. Catch-22. Given the enormity 
of the TC's tasks, the limits on its powers and enforcement 
abilities, and the severe employment restrictions surrounding 
service in the TC (IV.B.2), it is clear that any candidate for the 
TC willing to accept the job is almost certainly too inexperienced 
to be legitimately qualified for it.
    In Today's Market, More is Needed.
    4. In perhaps its broadest weakness, the PFJ fails to recognize 
that the circumstances of the original case were unique, and that 
circumstances today are very different. The Internet's rapid public 
acceptance around 1994-;1995 took many established computer-
industry firms by surprise, and radically changed the personal 
computer market. The basic reasons users wanted to own personal 
computers changed dramatically within less than two years. Two 
companies in particular, Netscape and Sun Microsystems, were able to 
aggressively exploit the new technologies and to take advantage of 
Microsoft's slow response to the burgeoning consumer demand. As a 
result, they were able to present a serious threat to the 
applications barrier to entry that has long protected Microsoft's 
monopoly in Intel-compatible operating systems.
    4.1. No longer any consumer demand for non-Microsoft Middleware. 
But that window of opportunity is long closed. The Internet is an 
established part of the personal computer market. Microsoft's 
Internet Explorer is the dominant browser. There no longer is any 
great consumer demand for alternative browsers. Netscape no longer 
exists as an independent company, and development of the Netscape 
browser occurs at a fraction of its former pace. Even the CIS 
acknowledges that Microsoft has ``perhaps extinguished 
altogether the process by which these two middleware technologies 
[Java and the Netscape browser] could have facilitated the 
introduction of competition into the market for Intel-compatible 
personal computer operating systems'' (CIS, III.B.3).
    4.2. Cannot resuscitate existing middleware competitors. Nothing 
in the PFJ can or will restore these competitors to their former 
strength. There is no way to rekindle the massive consumer demand, 
then left unserviced by Microsoft, that gave these companies their 
initial momentum.
    4.3. Hoping for another thousand-year flood. Still, the CIS 
claims the PFJ will ``restore the competitive threat that 
middleware products posed prior to Microsoft's unlawful 
undertakings'' (CIS, II). Given that Microsoft now dominates 
the browser market and retains its operating systems monopoly, and 
given that the PFJ

[[Page 28346]]

allows Microsoft to support its browser market share by tying the 
browser to the operating system, this claim seems to rest on the 
optimistic hope that some new disruptive technology will appear, 
will be ignored by Microsoft, and will create massive consumer 
demand for some non-Microsoft Middleware. Without such an event, the 
PFJ merely establishes rules for a game that has no players.
    Unconditional Surrender
    Finally, in a bizarre and extreme limitation, the PFJ will 
expire in only five years--;regardless of whether or not 
Microsoft retains its operating systems monopoly (PFJ, V.A). The DOJ 
must believe that not only is the PFJ an effective remedy, but that 
it will be so effective that Microsoft will be reduced to a shadow 
of its former self and must be unshackled in just five years (seven, 
if the Plaintiffs seek and receive the maximum extension permitted 
by the PFJ). Unfortunately, this clause is so careless that it will 
release Microsoft no matter the circumstances--;that is, even if 
Microsoft retains or even strengthens its monopoly power. The 
message that the PFJ sends is ``we'll try this for five years, 
and then we're giving up.''
    Any judgement should remain in effect until the Court finds that 
Microsoft no longer holds a monopoly in Intel-compatible operating 
systems. It makes little sense to release Microsoft until 
competition has re-entered the market and Microsoft may no longer 
commit the illegal acts described by the Court'' s Findings of 
Fact.
    Alternatives
    This PFJ illustrates the difficulty in devising effective 
conduct remedies for complex software cases such as this, especially 
where the defendant retains its monopoly power and the incentive to 
expand and maintain it by any method not prohibited by the PFJ. 
Vague technical definitions and even apparently narrow exemptions 
can be exploited by the monopolist to maintain its ill-gotten gains. 
It would be vastly preferable to create the proper structural 
conditions for competition by decoupling parts of the monopolist 
enterprise. Without a structural remedy, it is imperative that the 
definitions and prohibitions in the Final Judgement be as clear and 
comprehensive as possible, so as to fully restrict the anti-
competitive behavior that has been denying consumers choice, 
innovation and fair market pricing. There are a number of specific 
changes that ought to be made to the PFJ:
    . Any judgement should remain in effect until Microsoft no 
longer holds a monopoly in Intel- compatible operating systems. 
Starting in 5 years, the Court should annually review Microsoft's 
position in the Intel-compatible operating systems market. Should it 
find that Microsoft no longer exercises monopoly power in that 
market, and therefore cannot commit the illegal acts described in 
the Court's Findings of Fact, it could release Microsoft from the 
terms of the judgement.
    . The TC should be appointed entirely by the Plaintiffs, perhaps 
with the DOJ appointing one member, the States appointing a second 
member, and the Plaintiffs collectively appointing the third.
    . Definitions such as that of ``Microsoft Middleware'' 
should be tightened considerably, and the PFJ reworked to minimize 
its reliance on such narrow categories.
    . Microsoft should be required to make the full source-code for 
its Intel-compatible operating systems available for viewing by ISVs 
et al.. This will allow ISVs to better develop competitive products, 
and will allow the ISVs themselves to monitor Microsoft's compliance 
with the judgement's other technical requirements, instead of 
relying on an inefficient, overworked TC.
    . If the Court decides against requiring source-code sharing, it 
should at a minimum require the disclosure of all operating system 
APIs used by any Microsoft products (i.e. not just those APIs used 
by Microsoft Middleware). A blanket disclosure requirement such as 
this will close those existing loopholes whereby Microsoft might 
withhold critical information from ISVs whose products threaten its 
operating system monopoly.
    . Exemptions permitting various proscribed behaviors under 
certain circumstances should, as a whole, be stricken. Finally, the 
judgment should include real consequences for non-compliance, such 
as further conduct prohibitions, financial penalties, or further 
disclosure requirements. The PFJ currently provides only a possible 
Court-imposed two-year extension of its rather toothless provisions.
    Conclusion
    I hope that the PFJ is modified by the DOJ or the Court, and 
that what seems to be a great opportunity for antitrust law to make 
a difference for tomorrow's entrepreneurs and consumers is not lost 
in a fog of complexity. The technology may be complex and changing, 
but the underlying competitive issues are fundamental. I take both 
comfort and concern from the fact that I am clearly not alone in 
expressing these concerns. As the Financial Times editorialized: 
``. . .It would be wrong for the states, or the 
judge, to reject this settlement merely because it is not 
sufficiently punitive. The test is whether the proposal provides 
enough protection for the public and for Microsoft's competitors. As 
it stands, it does not meet this test. Though a continued trial 
would be expensive and distracting, it would be better than an 
unsatisfactory settlement. This proposal should be rejected..'' 
(Financial Times, ``Micro-too-soft'', November 5, 2001)
    I believe that the PFJ, if accepted by the Court in its current 
form, will lead to clear and irreparable harm to consumers and to 
the United States'' technology industry. So pervasive has 
technology become that the technology industry is an obviously 
critical component of the American economy.
    Even Business Week, itself no anti-capitalist Microsoft critic, 
recognized the broad implications of the resolution of this case: 
``. . . [T]he Justice Dept.'s weak censure of 
Microsoft for its serious monopolistic practices could cost the U.S. 
mightily in the years ahead. The great strengths of the American 
economy are its openness, its competitiveness, and its 
innovativeness. Monopoly is the enemy of all three.'' 
(BusinessWeek, ``Slapping Microsoft's Wrist'', November 
19, 2001)
    Based on my experience, I do not find the PFJ to be in the 
``public interest'', which is the standard that the DOJ 
and the Court are subject to under the Tunney Act.
    Respectfully submitted,
    Jonathan Gifford
    January 28, 2002



MTC-00028580

From: 
[email protected]@i
netgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:40pm
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 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,
    Noreen Willig 7394 E. Brisa Drive Scottsdale, AZ 85262



MTC-00028581

From: Peter Anderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:44pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
Please find attached my comments in the Microsoft Settlement.
Peter Anderson
5749 Bittersweet Place
Madison, WI 53705
(608) 233-;6167
Daytime: (608) 231-;1100



MTC-00028581--;0001

5749 Bittersweet Place
Madison, Wisconsin 53705
(608) 233-;6167
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
Re: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT COMMENTS
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like, if I may, to forgo adding any further efforts to 
muddy the law and, instead, just comment on the proposed settlement 
as a consumer who uses a PC computer. With all the drang and sturm 
already surrounding this case, the interests of the consumer can 
sometimes get lost in the legal crossfire.
    Separate from the arcana of the law, there are two competing 
views that have been expressed to determine the consumer's interest, 
as regards the benevolence of the monopoly that Microsoft maintains 
over desktop operating systems, and against

[[Page 28347]]

which the proposed settlement ought to be judged.
    The first, and most easy to understand, is the view ably 
championed by Microsoft. That points to the great advantages in 
convenience from having a single seller that, alone, can erect a 
seamless intra and inter connectivity among the various applications 
on one's own desktop and in electronic communications with different 
computer users using different platforms. Certainly the convenience 
factor has some merit and, I must confess, some of my computer-using 
colleagues with whom I discuss these issues second Mr. Gates'' 
feelings.
    On the other hand, and less readily understood but eminently as 
vital, is the essential creative energy for dynamic change and 
future progress that only emanates from disorganization and chaos, 
both of which are, too often, swallowed in the maw of a monopoly, 
especially one, like here, that has been found to wantonly abuse its 
monopoly power. That is why I believe this excerpt from the Pulitzer 
Prize winning book, Guns, Germs and Steel, is so instructive for how 
to structure a remedy in this case, if you will indulge me in this 
short detour to an explanation of why civilizations expand and fall-
    ``Why did China lose its [technological] lead [over 
Europe]? Its falling behind is initially surprising because China 
enjoyed undoubted advantages . . .
    ``These advantages and head start enabled medieval China to 
lead the world in technology. The long list of its major 
technological firsts . . . In the early 15th century it 
sent treasure fleets, each consisting of hundreds of ships up to 400 
feet long and with total crews of up to 28,000, across the Indian 
Ocean as far as the coast of Africa, decades before Columbus's three 
puny ships crossed the narrow Atlantic Ocean to the Americas'' 
east coast. Why didn't Chinese ships proceed around Africa's 
southern cape westward and colonize Europe, before Vasco da Gama's 
own three puny ships rounded the Cape of Good Hope eastward and 
launched Europe's colonization of East Asia? Why didn't Chinese 
ships cross the Pacific to colonize the America's west coast? Why, 
in brief, did China lose its technological lead to the formally so 
backwards Europe?
    ``The end of China's treasure fleets gives us a clue. Seven 
of those fleets sailed from China between A.D. 1405 and 1433. They 
were then suspended as a result of a typical aberration of local 
politics that could happen anywhere in the world: a power struggle 
between two factions at the Chinese court (the eunuchs and their 
opponents). The former faction had been identified with sending and 
captaining the fleets. Hence when the latter faction gained the 
upper hand in a power struggle, it stopped sending fleets, 
eventually dismantling the shipyards, and forbade oceangoing 
shipping . . . But in China . . . because the 
entire region was politically unified . . . [o]ne decision 
stopped fleets over the whole of China.
    ``Now contrast those events in China with what happened 
when fleets of exploration began to sail from politically fragmented 
Europe. Christopher Columbus, an Italian by birth, switched his 
allegiance to the duke of Anjou in France, then to the king of 
Portugal. When the latter refused his request for ships in which to 
explore westward, Columbus turned to the duke of Medina-Sedonia, who 
also refused, then to the count of Medina-Celi, who did likewise, 
and finally to the king and queen of Spain, who denied Columbus's 
first request but eventually granted his renewed appeal. Had Europe 
been united under one of the first three rulers, its colonization of 
the Americas might have been stillborn.'' Jared Diamond, Guns, 
Germs and Steel: the Fates of Human Societies, W.W.Norton & Co. 
(1999), at pp. 411-;413 (emphasis added).
    The same motivating forces that animate a civilization described 
by Mr. Diamond similarly infect those of companies, technologies and 
markets. Microsoft certainly has much to be proud of in prevailing 
over so many of its competitors. But innovation does not number high 
on that list.
    Whether we think back to the first ``killer app,'' the 
spreadsheet, or the word processor, not to mention the mouse, the 
user-friendly WYSIWYG interface, the world wide web, media 
streaming, music sharing or almost anything else that has caught 
fire in the market, it was someone other than Microsoft who 
conceived and gave life to these ideas so critical to the 
realization of the full potential of computing. Furthermore, the 
fact that Microsoft exercised its monopoly power over the desktop to 
destroy so many of these inventors, depriving them of their just 
reward for their labors, is of great concern for an economy whose 
lifeblood literally depends upon the nourishment of innovation.
    What Microsoft has added to the equation apart from technical 
refinements is, essentially, marketing--;marketing with the 
unique power that arises not because it has developed the newest or 
best product for the consumer, but rather the dominance that derives 
from the illegal extension of its desktop operating system monopoly.
    This is not a contentious statement. The company's executives 
openly acknowledge the fact, as in the Wall Street Journal profile 
that ran following Mr. Gates handing day-to-day control over to Mr. 
Ballmer two years ago at the height of this litigation. ``Mr. 
Ballmer's ascension signals--; ``the shift in power at 
Microsoft from those with purely technical minds to those who can 
fuse technology with business sense and customer concerns. For 
example, Microsoft's consumer chief Rick Belluzzo, a longtime 
Hewlett-Packard Co. executive whom Mr. Ballmer recruited, says the 
success of Microsoft's Web efforts depend more on marketing than 
technology.'' David Bank, ``How Steve Ballmer Is Already 
Remaking Microsoft,'' Wall Street Journal (Jan. 17 ``00) 
(emphasis added).
    Nor ought that statement to be surprising. It is in the 
essential nature of organization that, once primacy in some endeavor 
is achieved, every sinew in its corporeal body is marshaled toward 
the defense of the product at the source of its power, to be free of 
the unpleasantness of brutish competition, and to enjoy the quiet 
life of the monopolist.
    Understandable though that may be for any monopoly, including 
Microsoft, this condition does not demarcate the consumer interest. 
Rather it is antithetical to it. Messy but vibrant competition is 
the only proven engine to maintain the pressure to constantly strive 
and to provide rewards for those who succeed.
    Absent clear and enforceable constraints on the extension of 
Microsoft's desktop monopoly to the web and beyond, the future will 
be the worse for the dead weight of their monopoly. If the trial 
court's original structural remedy breaking up the operating system 
monopoly from applications and the web is off the table, then it is 
absolutely essential that the final judgment erect an impenetrable 
wall preventing Microsoft's conduct from extending its monopoly into 
the new frontiers that advanced computation have opened.
    This includes a ban on bundling or otherwise tying the sale of 
its Windows operating system with any other software product whose 
essential purpose is to communicate to or from the world wide web or 
manipulate digitized sights and sounds, all of which are outside the 
OS market and none of which is mission critical for a desktop 
computer to operate. At the same time, Microsoft must also open all 
its evolving source code with complete documentation to competing 
developers so that they are given a fair opportunity to be the First 
to market for mid-ware with product that is seamlessly integrated 
into the operating system. Lastly, the defaults built into the 
operating system cannot steer the passive user to Microsoft's 
products, such as the Word folder that Outlook Explorer continues to 
steer me to when attaching fries such as this to email, impervious 
to my best efforts to change that default setting.
    Mind you, none of this means that Microsoft ought to be stopped 
from marketing any product that they chose, so long as it is 
unbundled in its own shrink wrap to insure that they are forced to 
compete on a level playing field. Even if they had acquired their 
monopoly power on the desktop legally--;and the trial court 
found otherwise--;that tragedy would be inexcusably compounded 
in a black mark on the legal system were they now permitted to 
leverage that illegal monopoly into new markets and, in the process, 
slow the development of future opportunities on which America's 
leadership depends.
    For all his accomplishments, Mr. Gates ought not to be heard to 
complain about the intervention of the anti-trust laws in his path 
to market power inasmuch as Microsoft only exists by virtue of the 
fact that the Justice Department had previously sued IBM for anti-
trust violations, which at the time had a near monopoly in mainframe 
computers. The reason IBM visited young Mr. Gates that fateful day 
in 1979 in search of an outside party to provide an operating system 
for IBM's first personal computer was, by moving that product 
extension in someone else's hands, to throw the antitrust wolves off 
their traces, not because they had any capacity or desire to develop 
their own product in-house.
    Now it is time for him to recognize that the sun which has 
shined on him is setting. For the immediate future, Microsoft can 
continue to enjoy monopoly rents on a mature business so long as it 
refrains from those acts

[[Page 28348]]

found unlawful that illegally sustain its monopoly, but it must 
leave future markets to be conquered only by those who fairly 
prevail on the field of competition.
    It is in its dynamic economy that America has defined its 
greatness. In that achievement, however, lay the seeds of our own 
decline if we let ourselves become prey, as so many civilizations 
have before us, to subside into complacency, lured by the siren call 
of convenience and its hand maiden, the status quo.
    With the future of economic growth so tied to the ability to 
multiply human productivity through advances in computation, it 
would be a tragedy of the first order to let that happen. This case 
creates the opportunity to seize a far better future than the 
convenient but far more limited one promised by Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Peter Anderson



MTC-00028582

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:45pm
Subject: Anti Trust settlement
    Mr. Ashcroft,
    Please read the attached letter regarding Microsoft. Thank you.
    Regards,
    James J Lennox



MTC-00028582--;0001

James Lennox
19 Dellwood Drive
Florham Park, NJ 07932
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The purpose of this letter is to go on record as a supporter of 
the settlement that Microsoft and the Department of Justice has 
reached. The antitrust suit against Microsoft has drained state and 
federal government funds, as well as Microsoft's; am relieved to see 
that it has ended.
    A inordinate amount of money has been spent pursuing Microsoft, 
and this settlement finally allows an end to the litigation. The 
settlement was actually harder on Microsoft than I would have liked, 
but I am relieved to see an end to the dispute. In fact, Microsoft 
will be required under the agreement to supply its competitors with 
its intellectual property in the form of source code and design 
data, which makes up the internal structure of the Windows operating 
system. This does not seem fair to me, but if it ends the suit 
against Microsoft, I support it.
    This settlement is fair enough, and I just hope that there will 
be no further litigation against Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    James Lennox



MTC-00028583

From: 
paul--;[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I urge the Federal Government and those states involved in the 
settlement of the anti-trust case with Microsoft in November 2001 to 
continue with the process of settlement and see it through to its 
completion. I have read the terms of the settlement and the 
punishment of Microsoft is stern but fair for all involved. I and 
the other consumers who ultimately drive the economy will benefit 
from this settlement and that is of utmost importance today. It is 
time for the Federal Government the participating States and all 
those who seek to further delay this settlement to move on to other 
issues by allowing the completion of this settlement and ending the 
Microsoft anti-trust case once and for all.



MTC-00028584

From: 
[email protected]@i
netgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please honor this settlemnt and free time money and resources to 
pursue solutions to the truly outrageous abuses perpetrated by ENRON 
and ANDERSEN!!!



MTC-00028585

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The government has no business determining software/hardware 
combinations how technology can be improved how technology companies 
can form partnerships and how companies can manage their 
intellectual property. The market and consumers have already made 
that decision and make it every day in their purchasing choices. 
This settlement should be approved so that we can all move on to the 
business of innovation.



MTC-00028586

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Because I am old (68) I remember the growth of computer 
technology and it has been great. Microsoft has led the way. But 
along the way there has been a lot complaining about the leadership. 
As I remember it would come from people who were experts. It seemed 
they had control of their world and didnt want it to change. But 
technology is about change and therefore what ever Microsoft did it 
made the present better and pushed us into the future. From my point 
of view we should stop all law suites aginst Microsoft and get on 
with business.



MTC-00028587

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement proposal appears to be more than fair and with 
all the protection features necessary.



MTC-00028588

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Throughout this process Microsoft and Bill Gates have shown no 
remorse or even signs that they have infringed on the rights of 
others in the marketplace. The current settlement is a sellout to 
Microsoft.
    They concede nothing and give nothing. The day after this 
settlement concludes Microsoft will continue to bully and coerce 
smaller competitors protect their programs and deny what everyone 
thought that they were supposed to yield. Their lawyers will find 
protection in the samll print. Microsoft gained leadership through 
shrewd buisness alignments initially and afterward by borrowing 
technology from others. Did Microsoft introduce the mouse or pull 
down screens? No! If it wern t for other competition Microsoft would 
still have us using DOS. Microsoft has continuously introduced 
mediocre software and mediocre upgrades that crash and crash again. 
If they were building automobiles no one would buy a second one. 
Microsoft has dominated the personal computer software field with 
poor products soley because they have muscled every competitor into 
submission. The proposed settlment does nothing to stop this still 
arrogant corporation from continuing as it has in the past. Break up 
Microsoft!
    Give the Nation an honest and fair playing field for all. Thanks 
!



MTC-00028589

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am shocked that the government has brought this case against 
Microsoft. Microsoft is an innovative company that does a lot for it 
s consumers. It s amazing that a small business can be successful 
with the tools Microsoft has developed. This case against Microsoft 
needs to be dropped. It s harming consumers and our economy to 
continue such a fight against a company that has done so much for 
the consumers and America! Please drop this case and move on. 
Settlement is needed to help the economy to move forward. I am so 
disappointed in the 9 states that are continuing the fight against 
Microsoft. They are obviously not listening to the American people 
since most of us do not want this to continue since Microsoft has 
done so much to help improve our lives. It s so obvious that the 9 
states are being pushed to continue to fight Microsoft just for 
money and their power-hungry competitors that have not been able to 
develop products as well as Microsoft. As a consumer I choose which 
products I want to use. It s not forced upon me! Therefore I m not 
sure how I m being harmed. I choose what I want to use and I will 
continue to choose Microsoft. Please move forward and let things 
continue the way they are.



MTC-00028590

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time this case is settled as determined in November and 
stop any futher costs



MTC-00028591

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw

[[Page 28349]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Leave Microsoft alone. They have simplified the use of 
computers. What happened to free enterprise?
    they came up with a better mouse trap and other companies want 
to capitalize on their expertise.



MTC-00028592

From: 
[email protected]@in
etgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Leave Microsoft alone. This is the first company in the history 
of the United States to be number one in the world at what they do. 
I think that Mocrosoft has done a wonderful service to this country 
and I do not want any damage to the company that has managed to keep 
the foreigners away from the leadership in this technology. 
Microsoft deserves all of our support so that they will be able to 
concentrate on bringing to us the newest advances in computer 
software and related technology. Sincerely Frank
    Caycedo
    M.D.



MTC-00028593

From: 
[email protected]@inetg
w
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It seems the loudest voice against the settlement is Microsoft 
competitors. That should indicate to the court that they intend to 
use the justice system to their benifit. The settlement is just and 
fair and should be granted.



MTC-00028594

From: 
[email protected]@ine
tgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs I encourage you to complete and settle the Microsoft 
case as soon as possible in a manner that is the least intrusive of 
Microsoft. It is my opinion that this entire case is based not upon 
what is best for consumers as we enjoy the greatest technological 
advantage in the world here in the USA largely due to the 
contributions from Microsoft but based upon the desire of others as 
Larry Elison and Scott McNealey (Oracle & Sun Corporations) to 
themselves be # 1 in place of Microsoft. Both have openly and 
repeatedly said as much on many venues. It is time to close this 
case and move on. Best
    Regards
    Danny Chadwell



MTC-00028595

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The origin of Microsoft is the story of America.Competition and 
innovation should be encouraged cultivated and applauded.Tempered 
with some rules and regulations but not punished for triumph.Every 
contest has a winner and a loser.Does not the vanquished perpetually 
cry foul upon defeat?Technology today is a profusion of 
opportunities let`s not support regulatory suffocation!



MTC-00028597

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft is among the few companies who allowed the USA to 
become the number one software exporter in the world. Don t break or 
harm a company that brings so much money to the USA and that employs 
(directly and indirectly) so many people. Microsoft keeps bringing a 
lot of inovations at a very low cost for the customer.



MTC-00028599

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    i disagree with the gov. interfering with microsoft s effort to 
increase the use of technolgy. i wish to support the settlement that 
has been worked out between microsoft and the gov! please alow us 
the opportunity to determine what we want--;-now get off their 
back so they can provide us with new technolgy sincerely wesley and 
lois arent.



MTC-00028601

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle the case against Microsoft. Pursuing the case 
against Microsoft is harming consumers. Microsoft has done a lot for 
me as a small business owner. I do not support the actions of 
fighting Microsoft since their programs and tools have helped my 
business be successful. Please settle and let us consumers decide 
which products we want to use.



MTC-00028602

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Why tear down one of your biggest corporations just to destroy 
them? (EX> K-Mart). You have much bigger fish to fry. Go after 
the real problems--;the stock market. The manipulations of the 
anaylasts have done major damage to the ecomony. Go after those 
people who are one of your biggest problems instead of wrecking 
another major industry who has done so much to advance technology in 
the country and the world.



MTC-00028603

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft brought the computer to this country for the common 
people. They have done what the government could not do. Actually 
Microsoft brought the computer to the World. You should be thankful 
for this. Shame on you for being so selfish. Marcia



MTC-00028604

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It s a shame when corporations suing Microsoft can t stand 
competition. It also appears our legal system is willing to continue 
trying to destroy Microsoft. Why don t we just let the market system 
work? Let the people buy the product they want instead of forcing 
Microsoft to give incentives to it s competitors.



MTC-00028605

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The involvement of the government in this matter disturbs me a 
great deal. The tax dollars used to fund the prosecution of 
Microsoft far outweigh the consumer benefit (if any) a judgment 
would provide. As I see it the only people who are being assisted by 
this would be AOL SUN Oracle and others. So as a consumer I would 
like to once again thank you for all you ve done to help big 
business in my name.



MTC-00028606

From: 
[email protected]@inetg
w
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Get on with the settlement! As long as all parties aggree let s 
get back to good competitive business.



MTC-00028607

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is in the public interest and 
should be accepted.



MTC-00028608

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is my belief that government has gone too far in it s 
pursuit/vendetta against Microsoft. When the public buys more goods 
from a certain company it is usually because that company had the 
foresight to see the needs of the public. Also the public has in 
essence cast it s vote by buying goods and services from Microsoft 
thereby showing it s trust and it s wish to continue a consumer/
producer relationship with that company. It makes me wonder what is 
next on the government s agenda to attack and break up. This divide 
and conquer strategy taken by our government can next attack 
anything American. The people should beware and vote accordingly to 
be assured that those who intend to use big government against the 
public are not in a position to do so.



MTC-00028609

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 28350]]

    I do not support the settlement/s as written with Microsoft. 
Microsoft retains a monopoly on my PC. I can not remove MS Explorer 
from my PC. I favor Netscape. MS has been let off much to lightly. 
MS should be split up ASAP.



MTC-00028610

From: 
[email protected]@
inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Settle this problem now! This suit was not necessary to begin 
with. Taking up to much precious time and money of the tax payers.



MTC-00028611

From: 
[email protected]@inetg
w
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Yes I agree hope it is settled and finished let Microsoft 
continue with the creative course that made it famous and helped it 
bring about so many new products and ideas!! Feel Bill Gates is a 
deservering man --;- let him go on and on and on .......



MTC-00028612

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It seems clear that the settlement reached in the Microsoft case 
is a good one. The most important goal should be to end the use of 
the taxpayers money on such an unworthy cause. Let s end the waste!



MTC-00028613

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    THE ATTEMPTED RUINATION OF AN INOVATIVE COMPANY BY VINDICTIVE 
COMPETITORS SHOULD NOT FIND AN ALLY IN THE U.S. JUSTICE DEPT.. 
SETTLE THIS CASE AND LET S GET BACK TO BUSINESS.



MTC-00028614

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am concerned that this process has draged on long enough and 
$35 Million taxpayer dollers was too much to spend already.



MTC-00028615

From: 
[email protected]@inet
gw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It seems to me to be more a matter of extortion than justice.The 
complaints were brought by competitors rather than consumers. The 
anti trust and monopoly laws were intended to protect consumers yet 
consumers are not for the most part the ones complaining.If 
Microsoft is a monopoly then how can there be competitors to bring 
about these complaints? It seems to be another case like that of the 
tobacco co.s of the government seeing a huge pile of cash that it 
can extort from a legal corporation operating in a legal manner 
producing a legal product being used in a legal manner.



MTC-00028616

From: 
[email protected]@inet
gw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Although it is obvious that Gates is a communist I can t see any 
lawful authority for the government to tell him how to run his 
business. And just as the government asked Howard Hughes to finance 
World War II who do you think the government is going to ask to 
finance World War III?



MTC-00028617

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This is to register my support of Microsoft s position. I think 
we should support a company that is contributing to the US and world 
economy by providing a good product. It frustrates me that the 
government goes after Microsoft... why weren t they on Enron 
instead? Not enough contributions?



MTC-00028618

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We as Americans need to quit spending our time and valuable 
economic resources and focus on the real problems. Corporations like 
Microsoft keep America s economy running the war is not against 
Microsoft who provides job to thousands of Americans and helps to 
the financial health of our nation. Microsoft as a leading 
technology improvement corporation should be an example to follow 
restraining it will cause a regression of the high tech industry. I 
as a consumer and concerned citizen would like to see a little bit 
of wisdom in my elected representatives if they could do a better 
job by focusing on real problems and keep America rolling.



MTC-00028619

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Companies against Microsoft should go to work each day to 
innovate rather than collude with the state AG s to litigate! It 
seems that the only way to satisfy Microsoft s competitors is to 
legislate and litigate the Microsoft Corp. completely into oblivion!



MTC-00028620

From: 
paulbarker--;[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that the speedy resolution of the settlement is in the 
best interest of everyone--;the technology industry the economy 
and especially consumers. The nation has spent enough money on this 
case and should move on to other cases more important. Besides the 
lengthly negotiated settlement have been endorsed across the 
business spectrum. Let s just move on.



MTC-00028621

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This a fair and reasonable settlement time to let the agreement 
move forward and gauge the results speak for themselves!! Not only 
have i not benn overcharged for software but have received technical 
support free of charge whenever it was needed usually because of a 
problem on my end....I own a lot of software and by far Microsoft 
has been the most deserving of it s price....features combined with 
excellent customer service far exceedes almost all other competitors 
software I have used....other operating systems that i have seen are 
of no interest regardless if you give it to me for free! price vs. 
results is of the utmost importance....and free or cheap has it s 
costs....let free compition be thy guide not lawyers andspecial 
interests....i stand firmly behind a company that stands behind 
their products!!!! a satisfied Microsoft customer......



MTC-00028622

From: 
joe--;[email protected]@i
netgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My Opinion is that the government should stay out of technology 
and the web. They are currupting freedom of speech with every attack 
on the Internet & Microsoft. People shouldn t be prosocuted for 
doing good business and making good products. there hasn t been a 
company that is better at doing business OR making good software for 
consumers and business to use. Most Commerce on the internet is 
backed by microsoft servers and a technology that microsoft has 
made. That awesome advance (known as ACTIVE SERVER PAGES) in the 
internet is downplayed by one or more tiny little losers in the 
consumer market. Most people know and love windows its on something 
like 90% of consumers PCs.
    Your alternatives are Macintosh or Linux. Both of these options 
are either too technical or too expensive. Windows is easy enough 
for most Non-Technical people to use and learn. Macintosh says they 
are the easiest but with most people they dont want a Macintosh 
because they look dumb or they are too expensive you choose why. 
Plus $1000 for a low end computer isn t desireable for me how about 
you!?
    Your other option are linux and OS2 (all flavors) do you program 
C? I dont and im a database administrator enough said. Another 
person (or the government) might take the opposite view. Well they 
are soo good they are tring to take over all the companies that make 
technology. I don t believe they are tring to take over anything. I 
think that the consumers are making them. they are making products 
that are far better than any others.I don t work for microsoft nor 
do I believe in thier mission statements. But as a consumer in the 
technology field I believe in their products. So be it is I will 
continue to buy

[[Page 28351]]

Microsoft products reguardless of any government regulations%



MTC-00028623

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that the US Gov t cannot keep their mitts off of 
anything. I feel bad for the U.S. that we should target the 
entrepreneurial spirit of this country and lambaste the winners of 
the contest to see who can come out on top. It is to our shame that 
an outfit like Microsoft (being the biggest boy on the block by far) 
is hounded by the U.S. s own legal offices. My feelings about this 
whole incident lean towards the abstinence of the corporate entity 
in the marketplace from today on. In other words MS would close 
their doors from this point on retire those people that they can 
furlough those people that can t be retired and shut the doors. If 
the U.S. infrastructure begins to fail so be it. The justice dept. 
caused the whole thing. If the entire economic structure of the U.S. 
is placed in jeopardy because of this incident maybe the DOJ will 
put noses up their own a** instead of into other peoples businesses.



MTC-00028624

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has done more for this country than any other ten 
companies put together. Stop the action that seems to be planned to 
go on forever. Finalize the settlement and stop further action.



MTC-00028625

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am encouring a swift and fair conclusion to the Microsoft 
case. They should be allowed to innovate and offer the consumer 
their best product. They should be fair. The consumers will 
ultimately determine the software choices best suited for their 
needs.



MTC-00028626

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not believe that taxpayer interests are served by 
government continuing to hear competitor-driven antitrust lawsuits 
against Microsoft. It is regrettable that the original lawsuit was 
heard.
    Sincerely
    Jeannene Murphy



MTC-00028627

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that Microsoft has been unjustly treated. They happen to 
make the best internet browser and operating software in the 
industry. Microsoft has made is easy for first time computer users 
to access the Internet and I herald them for thier efforts... Now 
get off of them and let them do business.



MTC-00028628

From: 
[email protected]@in
etgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft should be prevented from its longstanding and ongoing 
deceptive and predatory business practices. If this requires 
breaking the company into two or more smaller companies so be it.



MTC-00028629

From: 
[email protected]@ine
tgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Attention: I am writing to tell you that I believe that there 
has been no consumer harm whatsoever as a result of any actions 
taken by Microsoft. In fact Microsofts products and services have 
led to tremendous benefits for consumers such as my myself and my 
family such as better products and lower prices. Antitrust law is 
supposed to be about consumer harm and on that one key issue alone 
the government has failed to show any harm whatsoever. So lets back 
off now and leave Microsoft alone and this will also help our 
economy tremendously! Given that the economy is now in recession the 
last thing we need is more litigation and regulation of the high-
tech industry. Settlement of this case is in everyones best 
interests the technology industry the economy and consumers. I hope 
you heed this advice! Thank you! Sincerely Lisa Ludwig



MTC-00028630

From: 
[email protected]@inetg
w
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In my humble opinion it is long past time to cease this 
ridiculous persecution of the most innovative corporation in the 
nation. The benefit that has accrued to the nation from Microsoft s 
standardization of software and the continued increase in the 
productivity thereof are vitually beyond calculation. And what do 
they get as their reward? Persecution by the government because a 
passel of would-be competitors simply are not sufficiently creative 
to keep up with them. Can it.



MTC-00028631

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Dept. Of Justice should drop it s lawsuit against Microsoft. 
Do not penalize a company for success. I feel that the lawsuit 
against Microsoft in early 2000 was one of the prime reasons the 
stock market started it s slide in 2000. Big Business drives the 
economy of this country do not stand in the way of the economy lets 
get the economy rolling again.



MTC-00028632

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please let the settlement stand. Do not pursue further action 
against Microsoft.



MTC-00028633

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    you have tried to strangle the goose that laid that golden egg 
and spent too much $$$ onit.



MTC-00028634

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I buy Microsoft products because I like them and I want them. 
The thought that Netscape or any other company is losing market 
share due to a monopoly is ridiculous. If I thought other products 
had merit I would buy them. The only reason Microsoft seems to have 
a monopoly is because their products are many times better than the 
competition! In my opinion the plaintiffs in this case are wasting 
my tax dollars.



MTC-00028635

From: 
[email protected]@inet
gw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the Microsoft settlement is fair and equitable 
for the technology industry. Further litigation would be counter-
productive to the technology industry and to the general business 
climate. It is time to end this protracted court action.



MTC-00028636

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe this settlement proposal unfair to Microsoft and 
prohibits Microsoft to conduct their normal course of business not 
unlike any other corporation. Microsoft has been unfairly targeted 
as an industry monster and this settlement sends the wrong message 
to other businesses and consumers alike.



MTC-00028637

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have been a consumer of Microsoft products since 1991. I have 
never felt disadvantaged by their pricing of their products. In fact 
my personal productivity has increased significantly every year as 
their products improved through innovations they incorporated into 
their software and services. I think the settlement is fair and it 
is time to end this costly legal battle. Our government has better 
battles to fight. I would urge the judge to pressure the remaining 
State s Attorney s to also settle the case and let s move on to more 
serious offenders than Microsoft which has helped make America the 
World leader in technology and software.
    Sincerely

[[Page 28352]]

    Rober J. Ballweber Jr.
    President



MTC-00028638

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not agree that MicroSoft has violated any antitrust laws. 
If it weren t for the intellect of Bill Gates where would we be 
today? He has made a difference!!!



MTC-00028639

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would strongly encourage the resolution of this suit by 
agreeing to the terms of the proposed settlement.



MTC-00028640

From: 
[email protected]@i
netgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Renata Hesse: Please find in favor of the Microsoft Corporation 
and direct the DOJ attention at more important matters such as 
corporate welfare and Enron.
    thank you
    Bryan Rogowski



MTC-00028641

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Our anti-trust laws should be modified to reflect the 
contemporary marketplace. Microsoft's competitors took advantage of 
antiquated laws to hurt the company that has provided unprecedented 
benefit to our society economy productivity as a nation and ability 
to comunicate globally. Free enterprise has prevailed. It is indeed 
the very size of Microsoft that enabled continuous reinvestment into 
improving it's products. The state of our present computing systems 
is now well ahead of where it might have been were Micrsoft 
restricted. Re-do the laws. Leave Microsoft alone. Tell the 
competitors to take their case to the market and not the courts.



MTC-00028642

From: 
ew--;[email protected]@ine
tgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern
    I believe as a citizen of this free country the government does 
not have right to intervene with any company. The companies of the 
United States are like the citizens of the United States. They both 
have the freedom to excel. This is what makes America what it is. In 
the case regarding Microsoft I believe they have their right to 
excel. They company has brought us new technology has helped out the 
economy and had begin a new market. The comapny should not be 
punished. I believe the majority of the citizens of the United 
States are grateful for what Microsoft has done and what they will 
continue to do. Its a shame that my tax money is being used against 
a company that wanted to excel.
    Thank you for this opportunity and your time.
    Take Care
    Eric W. Ross



MTC-00028643

From: Rick Moore
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    The proposed settlement does not go nearly far enough in 
stopping microsoft's egregious behavior. The company should be 
dealt with decisively. How many anti-trust suits do my tax dollars 
have to fund. You have a mandate to protect the consumer and 
competition. Microsoft has repeatedly shown contempt for our 
government and our people. If we are to fight terrorism around the 
world we should begin at home. This monopoly only inhibits the 
growth of our economy, It does not represent it. As a business 
manager I am forced into disadvantageous purchasing decisions as a 
direct result of microsoft breaking compliance with technologies 
before their life cycles are realized. We are forced to spend 
capital to replace equipment that is not broken just to remain on a 
platform that they support. You let the best remedy escape when you 
opposed the break up now you don't even have an enforceable 
doctrine. Please for all our sakes take stronger action. I just 
don't want to continue to buy lesser products because I have no 
choice.
    Thank You
    Richard Moore



MTC-00028644

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am computer professional who for 20 years has worked for large 
companies small startups and my own business. I urge the court to 
accept the proposed settlement. Further litigation will severely 
disrupt our industry and only serve those companies that directly 
compete with Microsoft. This case has never been about the interests 
of consumers or software developers. We have voted overwhelmingly in 
the marketplace for Microsoft products. They have been the 
underpinning of the great productivity and economic gains which we 
experienced in the past decade. The courts should not be used by 
corporations with inferior products as a mechanism for overturning 
the will of the free market. I resent the use of my hard earned 
taxpayer dollars to reverse my well thought out choices. I urge the 
court to settle this case now.
    Sincerely
    Casey Simon



MTC-00028645

From: 
[email protected]@i
netgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Best would have been for the government to halt the lawsuit. But 
this is acceptable



MTC-00028646

From: 
[email protected]@ine
tgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Judge Kollar Kotelly RE: U.S. vs. Microsoft Your Honor The U.S. 
Government has no business going after Microsoft in the first 
place--;Bill Gates started in a garage and made it 
work--;his whining competitors should get over it. Please let 
Microsoft get back to business. One thing about Microsoft is that it 
is a U.S. company--;please free it from U.S. and state lawsuits. 
We need good products to compete in the world market. Thank you Sir. 
Sincerely H. David Young 7165 E. St. Rte. 41 Troy OH 
45373-;9020 937-;335-;6422



MTC-00028647

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My thoughts concerning the settlement are few and simple. I 
believe that the government should have little to do with 
obstructing the free actions of the marketplace. To my knowledge 
Microsoft has not used force to compel anyone to purchase their 
products.



MTC-00028648

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    On behalf of the Ohio Taxpayers Association and our over 5,000 
Ohio members I am writing in support of the proposed settlement 
between the Justice Department and the State of Ohio. No further 
legal action is necessary or welcomed. The settlement provides a 
fair and reasonable settlement that benefits technology consumers 
and brings to end this lengthy case. Thousands of Ohioans are 
employed in well paying jobs because of the work of Microsoft in 
addition many more Ohioans are shareholders in the company. 
Settlement allows Microsoft and the rest of the technology industry 
in Ohio get back to work. The only thing this lawsuit has succeeded 
in doing is driving down the share prices of technology companies 
and wasted taxpayers dollars The positive benefits are numerous to 
this agreed upon settlement. Implementation of the settlement is a 
positive step for the American and Ohio taxpayer.
    Sincerely
    Scott A. Pullins
    Ohio Taxpayers Association www.ohiotaxpayers.com



MTC-00028649

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This settlement is for the COMPETITORs NOT the consumer !!! I 
always thought a free market system would let the market decide. We 
are not a free market system when the government dictates the market 
especially when it has been obvious over the last 4 years of this 
lawsuit that the competitors are

[[Page 28353]]

using our own government to gain their own advantages. Not many 
consumers in the US today believe this lawsuit has anything to do 
with them. We all know it has to do with jealously and posturing by 
the competitition.
    Please stop this nonsense and let consumers decide what is best 
for them. Our dollar speaks loudly in a free market system.



MTC-00028650

From: 
[email protected]@inetg
w
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement action recently undertaken between the Justice 
Department and Microsoft Corp. represents a fair and unbiased end to 
the legal battles that have gone on for these several years. To 
allow Microsoft s competitors to block this just settlement to aid 
their own deficient products would be a travesty and not at all in 
line with the fair competitive nature which benefits both consumers 
and producers.



MTC-00028651

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Though I do not believe that justice should be swayed by the 
majority's opinion for majority'ssake I provide my opinion here 
because the Microsoft case has been made open for public comment. 
The American government has taken Microsoft to task for being a 
productive innovative and successful company. The purpose of the 
government is to defend its peoples' individual rights these rights 
are impinged upon when force is used to undermine another's ability 
to think live or produce through free choice. Controls on legitimate 
spending contracts and productivity undermine civilized human 
behavior and only cause more controls. Microsoft has settled rather 
than fight the court system with its energy money and time. But the 
justice system is wrong. These laws should never have existed in 
America. There should be a complete separation between economy and 
state only cases of national security fraud and broken contract 
should be business matters of the court domain. To punish Microsoft 
for being so successful is the equivalent of punishing an individual 
for being good at living. I can only hope that the precedent set by 
the outcome of this case does not seek to completely undermine all 
that America stands for.



MTC-00028652

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that the settlement between Microsoft and the state 
attorneys general is fair and reasonable. I think it is time that 
this lengthy process is over. The parites that are upset about the 
settlement obviously want to see Microsoft crushed at the hands of 
the federal government. If these parties were genuinley interested 
is fairness which is what they claim then they should endorse the 
settlement as well. The settlement is in the best interest of the 
nations economy and the technology industry.



MTC-00028653

From: Doug Riddle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I think the increasing frequency of computer viruses and denial 
of service attacks only serve to underscore how important 
competition is in the market place, and how poor quality and service 
can get in the face of a monopoly. Microsoft is knowingly producing 
shoddy products because they can force suppliers to comply with 
their demands. They use their size, market share and media assets to 
avoid competition, while their lawyers tie up what competition and 
complaints there are. I do not want to see them shut down, but I 
want real accountability to the public built into the remedy. Please 
help see to it that any proposed settlement has teeth, or do not 
settle.
    Warmest Regards,
    Doug Riddle
    http://www.dougriddle.com



MTC-00028654

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This ruling against Microsoft is unjust. Settlements like these 
will scare any company into becoming too successful. The evidence 
against Microsoft failed to prove that Microsoft is a monopoly. This 
was just an action by the business-hating Clinton Administration. 
Don t Hang Microsoft out to dry.



MTC-00028655

From: Griffin, Joanne
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 4:45pm
Subject: I support Microsoft settlement
Please see my attached memo. THx.JSG
CC: ``fin(a)mobilizationoffice.com''
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to you to express my support for the settlement of 
the anti-trust lawsuit against Microsoft. The agreement that has 
been reached will not only help the economy, but it will ensure that 
in the future, anticompetitive corporate action will not be 
tolerated. Microsoft has not been let off lightly and the government 
has proven its point.
    The biggest provision of the settlement is the fact that 
Microsoft will not attack other computer manufacturers who produce 
rival products. This will definitely open up the market to fair 
competition without fear of reprisal. I support Microsoft's position 
and also think that it is necessary for small business to flourish 
in partnership with larger companies. This settlement allows this to 
happen.
    Three years is long enough for a case to continue. Microsoft has 
agreed to this settlement and now it is time for the government to 
respond in kind. Anticompetitive laws have benefited greatly from 
the result of this case and so have all sides concerned. Let 
Microsoft continue to develop software that benefits us all without 
the threat of further litigation hanging over the company. I urge 
you to accept this settlement. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Joanne Griffin
    1152 Center Drive
    Saint Louis, MO 63117



MTC-00028656

From: Bruce Nazarian
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Dear DOJ
    The fact that this government has backed down from properly 
seeking a strong settlement from Microsoft, in view of the finding 
that it has promulgated monopolistic behavior is distressing. In my 
view, and that of MANY literate computer professionals, what 
Microsoft has wrought on the Country, World, and the Computer 
business at large is nothing more than a thinly -veiled attempt to 
create a monopolistic stranglehold on how we compute, and what we 
compute with.
    If there needs be any further evidence about how ineffective 
Microsoft is at innovation, and how little they care about anything 
other than Market share, it would be this: Their Latest ``state 
of the art'' operating SYstem Windows XP, is so full of 
security breaches and bugs that it makes matters WORSE rather than 
better. And they KNOW it! In addition, they are patching these flaws 
so quickly and so often that it is virtually impossible for IT 
professional to maintain a stable computing environment in their 
businesses.
    I, for one, CATEGORICALLY REFUSE to operate their software, and 
avoid using the Windows operating system completely. Many IT 
professional are now switching to UNIX, Mac OS X and LINUX as a 
stable alternative.
    i wish that DOJ would SERIOUSLY REVIEW their proposed settlement 
(which has been watered down significantly since, coincidentally, a 
REPUBLICAN administratin took power) as it DOES NOT provide 
protection for the American Computing Public, and, in fact, lays the 
way clear for Microsoft to continue to promulgate Monopolistic 
control of the way we work--; Iff you need more proof, look 
seriously as the .NET Strategy, and their abusive software upgrade 
``purchase'' policies.
    I am disappointed with DOJ being prepared to THROW AWAY the ONLY 
opportunity we have to remedy Microsoft's egregious business 
practices, and to properly punish them. Please do the right 
thing--;since you won't break them up, at least LEVEL THE 
PLAYING FIELD so they can no longer usurp INNOVATION from third 
parties and call it WINDOWS. LOOK AT WHAT THEY DID TO NETSCAPE!!!! 
Mad, you're damn right I'm mad--;I pay your salaries! Now please 
do the will of the people, NOT the will of the politicians. WE WANT 
THIS ABUSER PUNISHED!

[[Page 28354]]

    Bruce C. Nazarian
    Common Citizen, and NON-Mircrosoft user



MTC-00028657

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:49pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    My wife and I enjoy the quality and reliability of Microsoft 
products. We have used competitors products in the past and have 
found them to be inferior time and time again.
    We think it would be in everyone's best interest to resolve the 
case. We may just be two individuals in the population but our 
opinion is that this drama has gone on too long as it is. The 
company that provides a superior product at a reasonable price 
should not be ``bashed'' just because it is preferred by 
the user.
    Approximately fifteen years ago a competition issue arose with 
telephone companies and I have not experienced the same degree of 
satisfaction in telephone service since the breakup of AT&T. I 
would hate to see history repeat itself.
    Maybe the time and monies used to prosecute Microsoft could be 
better used investigating the pricing and merger activities within 
the cable industry. At the consumer level these appear to be unfair, 
monopolistic, and not in the best interest of the public.
    Wesley & Lynn Sharpe



MTC-00028658

From: 
[email protected]@ine
tgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Mr Ashcroft:
    The settlement between Microsoft and the Department of Justice 
in regards to the antitrust suit is a very fair settlemant for all 
sides involved. I feel that there is no need to continue litigation. 
It is a wast of time and money. the only people who profit from this 
are the lawyers and the companies whose product are less popular 
with consumers.
    I feel that the settlement is a good thing and that it should be 
finalized.
    Regards Orrin O. Stromswold 2706 169th Ave N.E. Bellevue, Wa. 
98008



MTC-00028659

From: Reid Flickinger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Good Afternoon,
    As a professional with 20 plus years of computer technical 
experience and a decade-long owner of several successful computer 
service companies I feel that I have a relevant perspective on this 
case that should not be ignored. Important background to consider 
first is that I initially gained experience with Microsoft's 
competitor Apple, followed by various other competitor's systems. I 
was slow to move to Microsoft's products but eventually found that 
they offered superior products and support. As a developer in the 
computer business, they were far more responsive to my needs than 
Apple and delivered more cost effective solutions. Since then on 
countless projects, this has been the case and it is for no other 
reason then Microsoft's ability to offer better products and support 
with lower total-cost-of-ownership that they have my business.
    This case was never created for or even by consumers but for the 
benefit of failed market competitors to Microsoft. It was presided 
over by a judge with a personal axe to grind who was incapable of 
understanding anything technical. The prosecution of Microsoft was 
an insult and the behavior of the court was worse. Microsoft's 
proposed settlement is more than fair and should be accepted.
    Thank you for your time,
    Sincerely,
    Reid Flickinger
    Reid Flickinger
    Chief Technical Officer
    MFC Inc, SaleView Systems & Contact24 
    Continuous Web Monitoring and Notification
    [email protected]
    925.831.8942 Ext. 11
    www.saleview.com & www.contact24.com
    Danville, California U.S.A
    CC:[email protected]@
inetgw,letters@capitalis...



MTC-00028660

From: Minoofar(a)cox.net
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:48pm
Subject: Microsoft
44 Blue Horizon
Laguna Niguel, CA 92677
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I was recently informed that the DOJ has asked for the public's 
opinion on the antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft. As I feel very 
strongly about this issue, I decided to take full advantage of this 
opportunity. I am an avid support of Microsoft and if this 
settlement brings closure to this three-year battle against them, 
then I support the settlement as well. In my opinion, this lawsuit 
as done nothing but attempt to tear down the IT industry leader. In 
the process, major damage has been done to this industry and the 
economy. It is time to bring closure to this case and I hope that 
you will make the necessary decision to ensure this.
    I have a hard time understanding the reasons behind the 
States'' dissatisfaction with the settlement. The settlement 
seems fair and serves to ensure that future antitrust violations 
will not occur. Microsoft has even agreed to alter business 
practices that were not found to be unlawful, just so that this 
matter will close quickly. As for Microsoft competitors, they should 
be more than pleased that Microsoft has agreed to grant them much 
easier access to their company codes and interfaces. This is the 
first time that this has happened in an antitrust case. Additionally 
Microsoft will adhere to findings by a Technical Committee as it 
relates to compliance disputes.
    I am confident that I am one of many people who feel the same 
way about this matter and hope that my comments and those of others 
will play heavily on your decision to wrap this matter up quickly. 
Thank you for taking the time to consider my thoughts on this 
matter.
    Sincerely,
    Albert Minoofar
    cc: Representative Darrell Issa
    CC:[email protected]@
inetgw



MTC-00028661

From: Liz Bradley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:51pm
Subject: Microsoft anti-trust settlement
    Greetings--;
    I am a professor of computer science at the University of 
Colorado at Boulder. I am a lifelong Unix user, but my professional 
life has been significantly affected by the Microsoft monopoly, and 
I would like to make a few points about the settlement.
    Microsoft has a long history of business practices that 
intentionally and effectively tie its users'' hands--;in 
ways that benefit Microsoft, and that perpetuate and extend its 
monopoly. Their business practices are predatory, and their design 
choices have made it difficult for anyone to use any kind of 
competing software or format. This is true from the system level 
(e.g., the netscape lockout) to the social/practice level--;for 
example, how hard it is to get a Microsoft email program to send 
email messages in anything but Microsoft-proprietary format.
    This last example, which hits me many times every day, may seem 
petty, but it is really pernicious--;in the way that my history 
classes taught me that the anti-trust act is intended to fix. I get 
email from a non-computer-scientist colleague, complete with a Word 
attachment. I email back, asking for a lingua franca format like pdf 
or ascii. My correspondent can't figure out how to do the 
translation, eventually gets frustrated, and castigates me for not 
``getting with the program'' and using Microsoft. Since I 
use computers professionally, doing so is not an option; moreover, I 
know enough to not succumb to that kind of pressure. Neither of 
those things is true for most people, and the pressure propagates 
the Microsoft monopoly.
    Encouraging an entire community of users to use a single set of 
proprietary software is not only a matter of monopoly. It is also a 
matter of security. Microsoft's email programs, for example, not 
only force their naive users to send Microsoft-format attachments, 
but also make those users vulnerable, because the defaults are set 
up so incoming attachments are automatically ingested. Moreover, 
those programs are full of security holes. This combination causes 
dozens of virus attacks to propagate around the world every year. My 
colleagues'' computers are routinely paralyzed during these 
events, but I have never--;NEVER--;been affected by a virus 
in my 20 years at MIT and Colorado.
    It is well known in ecology that a diverse population is far 
more robust. The goal of Microsoft's direct and indirect pressure is 
a homogeneous population of computer users running Windows. A single 
smart hacker would be able to take down this entire country if they 
succeed.
    File formats should be open, just like the design of a car 
interface --;- the steering

[[Page 28355]]

wheel/accelerator layout, etc.--;is open. Competitors should not 
be smothered using heavy handedness. (This is EXACTLY what catalyzed 
the suit that ended up in Sherman!) The open-source community, in 
particular, should be allowed to thrive, not squelched. 
Manufacturers should be able to install any OS that they can sell, 
without fear of retaliation. That kind of force is the very 
antithesis of the free and open market.
    Sincerely,
    Elizabeth Bradley
    Boulder CO
    CC:[email protected]@
inetgw



MTC-00028662

From: Oliver Harris
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 4:47pm
Subject: Settlement
    Our government or any part thereof, should never be used as some 
sort of wrecking ball used against those entities which through 
superior strategy and innovation realize the maximum benefits of our 
capitalistic system. It is through such practices that the consumer 
realizes the greatest benefits of innovations at competitive market 
costs.
    Therefore, it is a credit to our system of justice and fairness 
that the anti-trust case against Microsoft, encouraged and driven by 
those entities that choose to whine rather than compete, be 
concluded in this settlement rather than some heavy handed judgement 
by the DOJ against the Microsoft Corporation.
    Thank You.
    Oliver Harris
    Loan Officer
    CWCapital, Mid-Atlantic
    6395 Dobbin Road
    Suite 206
    Columbia, MD 21045
    410.772.2260 x4
    410.772.0503
    [email protected]



MTC-00028664

From: Jan Chesne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The purpose of the settlement, I hope, is to restrain 
Microsoft's monopolistic tactics in the future. Allowing them to 
donate their software and compatible hardware to schools would be a 
step in the wrong direction, only furthering their monopoly. 
Anything to equalize the playing field would be helpful, e.g., let 
them purchase competitors'' products for the schools.
    I believe MS should be required to make most of its products and 
Web services compatible with all other systems. Windows should be 
provided separately from other MS products (Outlook Express, etc.) 
so that hardware makers could include competing products and users 
could make easier choices.
    Good luck.
    Janet Chesne
    61 Village Park Way
    Santa Monica, CA 90405



MTC-00028665

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We strongly support the settlement and want to see this put 
behind us. Microsoft is one of America's great companies and has 
been punished enough. Let's move on.
    Albert Strong
    Privo.com
    CC:[email protected]@in
etgw



MTC-00028666

From: Danny O. Bielby
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Freedom to inovate.
    If this was a drug, wouldn't you have a patent on it. You can't, 
what's new today is old tomorrow invclving the internet. In some 
cases there having law suits today and making the rules tomorrow. I 
have a little company,so should I automaticaly sue a bigger company 
with not much of a cause. Who knows, I might win, if not it will be 
a tax deduction.
    Thank you, Danny O. Bielby



MTC-00028667

From: philippa jeffery
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam,
    Please find attached the Tunney Act Comments for Citizens 
Against Government Waste.
    Philippa Jeffery
    Media Associate
    Citizens Against Government Waste
    1301 Connecticut Ave., Suite 400
    Washington, DC 20036
    202-;467-;5318- Direct Line
    202-;467-;4253- Fax Number
    [email protected]
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff
    Civil Action No. 98-;1232 (CKK)
    V.
    MICROSOFT CORP.,
    Defendant
    COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT BY:
    Citizens Against Government Waste
    Thomas A. Schatz
    President
    1301 Connecticut Ave., NW--;Suite 400
    Washington, DC 20036
    (202) 467-;5300 FAX: (202) 467-;4253
    On behalf of the one million members and supporters of Citizens 
Against Government Waste (CAGW), I am providing comments on U.S. v. 
Microsoft pursuant to the Tunney Act. CAGW supports the settlement 
as being in the public interest and opposes further litigation in 
this case. Further expenditure of tax dollars and government 
resources on this case, which has stifled technology, innovation, 
and investment at a time when the economy is in recession and the 
nation is at war, would not benefit the American people.
    CAGW is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization founded in 1984 by 
J. Peter Grace and Jack Anderson following the report of President 
Reagan's Private Sector Survey on Cost Control, better known as the 
Grace Commission. Since its founding, CAGW has been researching, 
publicizing, and working to eliminate wasteful government spending. 
In particular, CAGW has exposed mismanagement of governmental 
resources in the technology sector, such as incompatible computer 
and accounting systems, as well as billions of dollars spent on 
hardware and software that simply did not work. On the basis of our 
18 years of nationally recognized expertise representing the 
interests of American taxpayers, we are submitting our comments to 
you today.
    On November 6, 2001, Microsoft, the Department of Justice (DO J) 
and nine states agreed to a Proposed Final Judgment (PFJ) in the 
lawsuit against the company. As the overriding element of the Tunney 
Act is whether an antitrust settlement is in the public interest, 
CAGW submits that the PFJ clearly meets this standard.
    CAGW estimates that to date the Microsoft lawsuit has cost 
taxpayers more than $35 million. It has also hobbled one of 
America's premier high-tech engines of growth at a time when we need 
to jump-start our economy. The PFJ is fair to all sides in the case, 
including:
    Microsoft, which will continue to be able to provide new 
software that integrates new products;
    Competitors, who will have more access to the Windows platform 
to incorporate their products or make them compatible;
    Software manufacturers, who will get back to the business of 
creating innovative products;
    Consumers, who will have more choices among software products; 
and,
    Investors, who will have stability in the marketplace.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, 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. 
Furthermore, Microsoft, DOJ and the nine states have accepted the 
settlement as better than continued proceedings.
    Specifically, Microsoft will not be broken up and will be able 
to continue to immolate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products

[[Page 28356]]

developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a technical committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    The settlement is compatible with the findings of the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which substantially 
narrowed the scope of legal liability and instructed the U.S. 
District Court to created remedies that fit the ``drastically 
altered'' findings. As Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust 
Charles James said in testimony before the Senate in December:
    Of the twenty anticompetitive acts the court of appeals 
reviewed, it reserved 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 
findings that Microsoft's ``course of conduct'' separately 
violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act. It reserved 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, or course, it vacated the 
district court's final judgment that set forth the break-up remedy 
and interim conduct remedies.
    Acceptance of the PFJ would send a clear signal to the nine 
remaining states and the District of Columbia opposed to the 
settlement that their remedy is not appropriate given the findings 
of the court of appeals. The alternative proposed by the remaining 
plaintiffs appears to be based on the original district court 
decision, which is no longer relevant. Dragging the proceedings out 
further, with a new remedy hearing, a new district court decision, 
another appeal to the DC Circuit, an appeal to the Supreme Court, 
and remand back to the court of appeals and district may be in the 
interests of Microsoft's competitors, but it is not in the public 
interest.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors'' products after purchase as well. The PFJ even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    Public opinion is squarely in favor of settlement. Voter 
Consumer Research conducted polls of 1,000 eligible voters in Utah 
and Kansas in November, 2001, and opposed further action by their 
state attorneys general following the settlement by a 6 to 1 margin. 
This is an even greater percentage than previous polls concluding, 
by a 2 to 1 margin, that the lawsuit brought by DOJ and the 19 
states was a waste of tax dollars.
    The Microsoft case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers, who have paid the price of litigation through their 
taxes. Investment portfolios have been substantially devalued during 
this battle, and now more than ever, the country needs the economic 
stability this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the 
public interest, and should be accepted without change.
    Respectfully Submitted,
    Thomas A. Schatz
    President, Citizens Against Government Waste



MTC-00028668

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attn: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Dept of Justice
    In my opinion, the terms of the findings of the Court of Appeals 
ruling has been met by Microsoft who has not only met but gone 
beyond said findings. Microsoft has agreed that the terms are 
reasonable and fair to all parties involved. It's time to drop the 
matter and allow Microsoft, as well as the industry, to move 
forward. Please NEVER forget what MICROSOFT has done for the 
INDUSTRY.
    Thank you for your attention to the foregoing.
    Sylvia Earnst



MTC-00028669

From: Billy SG McCarthy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:50pm
Subject: Lack of Punishment
    To whom it may concern,
    I'm writing as a concerned citizen, and as a computer science 
major to express my feelings about the settlement reached between 
the United States Department of Justice and Microsoft. Like many 
others out there, I do not think that the settlement reached goes 
nearly far enough to punish Microsoft for it's illegal actions. 
Also, the settlement does not give anyone any real power to prevent 
any further antitrust issues from arising.
    Microsoft was found guilty of numerous violations of antitrust 
law, and they are walking away pretty much unscathed. It feels like 
the US DOJ doesn't have the stamina to fight against a huge 
corporation, and therefore took the easy way out. This is not right. 
It is the government's job to find a remedy that is in the best 
interest of the citizens of the United States of America. We are the 
ones who were injured by Microsoft's anticompetive actions, and we 
want to make sure that will never happen again.
    Thank you for your time, and I hope that this joke of a 
settlement is never agreed upon.
    William SG McCarthy
    18 Allston St.
    Allston, MA
    USA



MTC-00028670

From: Christina Jordan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:52pm
Subject: Microsoftsettlement
    The anti-trust lawsuit the government filed against Microsoft 
was the beginning of the recession. Let it go so we can get our 
economy going again!
    Christina Jordan



MTC-00028671

From: John Roth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
    I would like to register my deep dissatisfaction with the 
settlement terms offered by the Justice Department to Microsoft. 
These terms are not in the public interest; rather, they seem to 
serve only the interest, not even of the shareholders, but of the 
executives of a few powerful corporations, including Microsoft.
    I will not bother to repeat the observations of, for example, 
Consumers Union, but rather focus on one specific failure of the 
settlement: namely, to address the concerns of open-source software 
development.
    Many the most important tools that I use in my work as a 
software developer are ``open-source'' software, including 
the GNU/Linux operating system. These are non-commercial products 
with many qualities that Microsoft products have never achieved, 
such freedom from crashes, support for networking with standard 
security protocols, compatibility between versions, and adaptability 
which make them ideally suited to software development. These 
products are developed largely on the volunteer work of thousands of 
developers; their quality stems directly from the openness and 
liberality of the copyright. Their low dollar cost does not reflect 
their value.
    One of the greatest challenges in open-source software 
development is to implement interfaces to obfuscated, proprietary 
protocols that companies such as Microsoft develop to lock-out 
competitors. This point that was not lost on the Department of 
Justice only a year or two ago. Unfortunately, the terms of the 
settlement enable Microsoft to continue to use its monopoly power 
against open-source products, since many of the remedies that are 
supposed to prevent Microsoft from dominating by implementing 
proprietary protocols are conditioned on there being an economically 
viable corporation, rather than a more reasonable definition, 
perhaps in terms of the number of users represented.
    This is a slap in the face to open-source developers, absolutely 
contrary to the public interest, which it is the Governments'' 
special responsibility to protect, and a failure to enforce the 
spirit of anti-trust law, which is to prevent mere market domination 
from stifling competition. There is no real wealth created by 
Microsoft's use of proprietary protocols; only a guarantee of its 
ability to stifle alternative platforms in the future.
    Your Truly,
    John Charles Roth



MTC-00028672

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings...
    As a long time computer user (since ``82) and software 
developer (since ``85), I have been extremely bothered and 
dismayed at the methods that Microsoft has utilized in its business 
practices. However, because of the

[[Page 28357]]

combination of Microsoft's massive pocketbook and their ability to 
intimidate others within the industry, it seemed the the only relief 
from Microsoft's tactics lay with the anti-trust efforts of the US 
Govt and the various states. When Microsoft was found guilty of 
predatory monoplistic behavior, Judge Jackson's orginal solution was 
right on target for what was deserved and needed to remedy the 
actions of Microsoft.
    After this valid punishment was overturned on a technicality, an 
settlement was proposed which does nothing but provide Microsoft 
with a slap on the wrist and a promise to ``go forth and sin no 
more''. This is the same ``punishment'' that 
Microsoft received in ``94.. after which they went out and 
obliterated Netscape from the Internet, held PC makers hostage to 
their demands for the desktop and threatened Apple Computer with 
actions that would have destroyed Apple unless Apple played the game 
the Microsoft way.
    Microsoft has truly proven itself to be a company that cannot be 
trusted, despite all of Bill Gates'' ``aw-shucks'' 
mannerisms and speeches. This is a company that choses to not play 
by the rules or behave like a responsible corporate citizen. Just 
like with any other individual who continually operates outside the 
rules, the Federal and State governments MUST PUNISH Microsoft in a 
way that is comenserate with their crimes.
    The proposed settlement does not in any way begin to match what 
the court documents clearly show that Microsoft deserves. It should 
be thrown out and a new plan devised that exacts from Microsoft the 
punishment it deserves.
    Thank you.
    Dean Gillispie 
[email protected] 
(281) 280-;2883 (voice)
    SSTF-Vehicle Sys Raytheon Technical Services Co. Houston, Texas, 
USA



MTC-00028673

From: Anthony Correia
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:52pm
Subject: Government Persecution of Big Business
    Stop ``killing'' Big Business! Get on with the job you 
all are getting paid for with our tax dollars--; 
constitutionally--;to provide for the common defense of the 
``several states'! Fight TERRORISM not American companies that 
hire citizens who pay the very taxes you people frivolously fritter 
away on ``unjust'' causes''.
    If we find crooks in our American industries, there are many 
legal and local authorities to chase them and prosecute to the 
``fullest extent of the law''.
    I pray to God that this message is CLEAR enough for the least of 
you and your limited understanding of the Constitution!
    An angry Korean ``Conflict'' veteran...



MTC-00028674

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    I strongly object to the proposed settlement with Microsoft. It 
is a gross and negligent miscarriage of justice.
    I have some unique first-hand knowledge of the kind of financial 
damage that Microsoft has inflicted upon other companies. I know 
this because I was at the heart of the project at Compaq that 
resulted in Microsoft terminating Compaq's license to Windows.
    Let me provide some background for you. I am the former product 
manager at Compaq Computer Corporation who was responsible for the 
Compaq/AOL deal in 1995. I worked for Rod Schrock, who was Vice 
President of the consumer division. You used several of my email 
messages in your case against Microsoft.
    In 1995, I was placed in charge of defining Compaq's consumer 
online strategy. I proposed a relationship with America Online, one 
which was great for America Online, and even better for Compaq. It 
was worth HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN INCREMENTAL PROFIT to 
our business unit. The deal, in a nutshell, involved Compaq heavily 
promoting the AOL service, in exchange for AOL giving Compaq a 
significant ongoing revenue share.
    Microsoft heard about this forming relationship. They contacted 
us and asked that we work with them instead of AOL, to promote their 
new online service code-named Marvel (now known as MSN, the 
Microsoft Network). We responded that we would be happy to work with 
them, but we would expect them to pay us in a similar fashion to how 
AOL was to pay us.
    Their response? I'll paraphrase: We are Microsoft. We own the 
customer, not you, Compaq. You Compaq have three choices:
    1) Do the deal with Microsoft. We will pay you NOTHING, but 
we'll have a closer relationship, with various intangible benefits 
(wink wink lower price on the OS, etc.)
    2) Cancel the deal and do it with nobody. We are OK with that.
    3) Do the deal with America Online. WARNING: IF YOU PURSUE THIS 
OPTION, WE WILL PUT YOU OUT OF BUSINESS.
    Our team at Compaq reviewed the situation, and concluded that 
Microsoft must be bluffing. They couldn't do it, because it would be 
a blatant violation of anti-trust laws. We decided to proceed with 
the deal.
    Shortly afterward, Microsoft sent us a letter telling us that we 
were in violation of their Windows License agreement, and we could 
no longer sell PCs with Windows installed. Our license to Windows 
was terminated. Since Microsoft Windows is the only viable operating 
system on the market, we were effectively shut down as a company. As 
Microsoft had threatened, THEY WERE PUTTING US OUT OF BUSINESS!!!
    Needless to say, we ended up having to quickly appease Microsoft 
and redo the deal with AOL, dramatically watering it down and making 
it effectively into a nothing deal: no substantive benefit to AOL, 
no substantive benefit to Compaq.
    If this kind of behavior is not a flagrant abuse of monopoly 
power, I don't know what is. Microsoft regularly wields this kind of 
abusive power. They have it, and they use it most aggressively. 
Speak with any of the myriad companies that have fallen victim to 
Microsoft's stranglehold. Their corpses litter the high-tech 
industry.
    Just how powerful is Microsoft? Powerful enough to put just 
about any company out of business in short order if they were 
determined, including other huge powerful companies such as Intel. 
How would they accomplish such an impossible-sounding feat? Simply 
by making the following announcement: ``Microsoft today 
announces a strategic relationship with Advanced Micro Devices. 
Beginning with the next version of Windows, which will ship in six 
months, only new co-branded AMD/Microsoft processors will run 
Windows optimally. Legacy Intel processors will still run Windows, 
but only at 1/4 speed, and only for a limited time. Microsoft 
strongly encourages its customers to begin migrating to the AMD/
Microsoft platform immediately, in preparation for the release of 
the exciting new Windows system.''
    The proposed settlement does little or nothing to prevent this 
kind of behavior in the future. The absurd thing is, it actually 
gives Microsoft a government-sponsored leg-up to claim an additional 
monopoly in one of the rare markets that they don't currently own: 
the education market.
    Microsoft (and some supporters) say that ``Microsoft is 
good for the U.S. economy... they are a brilliant high-tech success 
story for America ... don't punish successful companies.'' 
There is a half-truth in what they say, but their logic is flawed. 
By that line of thinking, Standard Oil would never have been broken 
up. In truth, Microsoft has not been a strong force for innovation. 
To the contrary, they have systematically stifled innovation. Their 
policy seems to be ``crush anything that Microsoft doesn't own 
and control''.
    We will never know how much innovation and economic growth might 
have emerged from companies that fell victim to Microsoft's control 
ploys. However, we can guess by looking at one rare example where 
they failed. We know that Microsoft did not want the open Internet 
to happen, that instead they had a vision of a Microsoft-owned-and-
controlled worldwide network (see early presentations on Microsoft's 
Marvel Project). In this case, for once, they did not move quickly 
enough to stop this emerging threat, and by the time they began 
their attack, they met a force so powerful that even they could not 
stop it. We now know just how much benefit the U.S. and the world 
have realized from the advent of the Internet. How many other 
promising technologies and markets has Microsoft successfully 
stopped? How much economic growth has been stunted by the Robber 
Baron of high-tech? The time has come to force Microsoft to play 
fair.
    I would be glad to discuss this further with anyone from the 
DOJ. Please contact me at your earliest convenience.
    Thank you,
    Vaughn Rhodes
    Formerly Strategic Planning Manager (and Product Manger) at 
Compaq Computer in Houston, TX
    650-;938-;8587 (home)
    650-;279-;6221 (cell)
    [email protected] (work email address)

[[Page 28358]]

    [email protected] (home email address)
    CC:[email protected]@
inetgw



MTC-00028675

From: Richard Ballard
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 4:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I find it interesting that now, after you made your decision, 
you permit comments on your to little to late actions.
    While following this case not once did I see where it was 
mentioned all the third party software stolen by Microsoft and 
``added'' to their Operating System. ICQ (now MS Message), 
MP3 (Winamp, MuchMusic, etc. and here they decided to lower the 
standard 128BPS), Java (They usurped the whole idea of java, making 
programs usable on ALL OSs, by changing the code so it wouldn't work 
on their own system). Internet Connection Sharing wasn't an MS idea, 
I bought that programming back in Win 95s day. Now its a feature? 
Another company product down the drain.
    These are a few of many examples of Microsoft's brazen theft 
that seemed to be ignored, while they cry ``foul''.
    And for punishment you are trying to give them a foothold in the 
Education market they ignored until Apple started showing it as a 
viable market? What about the businesses and programmers they put 
under?
    Your punishment couldn't have been any better for Microsoft. Do 
you own stock?
    Richard Ballard
    8812 Spring Lake RD.
    Pine Bluff, AR



MTC-00028676

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:51pm
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,
    Rita Carder
    4 Brooks Road
    none
    Bel Air, MD 21014



MTC-00028677

From: Michael Myers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to take a moment to voice my objection to the 
propsed settlement in the Microsoft Anti-Trust case. I believe that 
the proposal is far too weak to have any meaningful effect on the 
marketplace.
    In the past, Microsoft has demonstrated it's willingness to do 
whatever it sees fit in spite of the law, and to use it's billions 
to fend off any legal action until it is far too late to rectify the 
damage. I expect that if this settlement is accepted, it will be 
less than a year until Microsoft breaks the agreement in the pursuit 
of some competitor and creates another prolonged legal battle that 
will not be resolved until the competitor is long dead. And I expect 
that every last word in the agreement will be endlessly debated in 
court case after court case, as Microsoft forestalls any enforcement 
for years. Microsoft has shown little respect for the law to date 
(in terms of previous broken agreements, falsifying testimony 
related to IE and Windows, forging letters of support, etc). There 
is no reason to expect them to behave differently in the future.
    Such outrages are funded by a public that has little choice but 
to pay Microsoft for it's products. I am writing this letter on a 
Linux machine that I bought with Windows 98. Despite the fact that I 
do not use MS products, I find that I am forced to buy them whenever 
I buy hardware. So long as MS can ``tax'' us this way, 
they can afford unlimited legal bills. I feel that any settlement 
that does not split up the company or prevent it from using Windows 
to enter new markets is doomed to fail.
    Finally, I find it absurd that the DOJ won the first case, and 
essentially ``won'' the appeal (in that all the findings 
were upheld and only the remedy was vacated), and then suddenly 
turned about and proposed the weakest remedy imaginable (filled with 
all the legal loopholes MS could dream of). This smells heavily of 
politics. It seems very much as if the new DOJ lead by Mr Ashcroft 
is not interested in enforcing antitrust law or achieving justice 
for consumers, but is instead catering to the worst elements of the 
Republican party. Hopefully, the court will not accept this.
    Sincerely,
    Michael J Myers
    Manchester, PA 17345
    [email protected]



MTC-00028678

From: Bruce McDiffett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings,
    I'd like to express my extreme personal and professional 
disappointment at what I deeply believe will be the almost total 
ineffectiveness of the proposed Microsoft antitrust settlement 
agreement.
    You might just as well sentence a serial killer to probation, 
with the stern warning to not kill the victims again.
    As a computer designer, I've had the opportunity to work with 
Microsoft since the late 1970's. I've watched them stifle technical 
innovation for almost a quarter century now. For nearly 25 years, 
regardless of their corporate size, they have consistently shown 
their only interest is maximizing their corporate profit by any 
means, legal or illegal.
    Microsoft has indeed made a bunch of money for some people. So 
does dumping toxic waste into the environment. Why should Microsoft 
be treated differently than anyone else, simply because they've made 
a lot of money?
    As a revealing exercise, consider how much human effort is 
wasted by Microsoft software each year. Assuming 100,000,000 PC's 
running MS software, and also assuming a week of unnecessary 
downtime each year (a conservative estimate), every year we have 
almost 2 million man-years of human life squandered--;simply 
thrown away. This is technical innovation? This is business 
leadership? No, this is an appalling disregard for human life. And 
this tyrannical contempt for the lives of the people is made 
possible by Microsoft's monopoly. Our country was founded to defend 
the people from tyrants. And though the founding fathers of our 
country believed in market freedoms, they believed more in the power 
of our government to protect the public interest. That's why we have 
a federal government, and not a federal marketplace. Please, have 
the courage to create a settlement agreement that will actually 
protect the American people.
    Millions of us are depending on you.
    Sincerely,
    Bruce McDiffett



MTC-00028679

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:53pm
Subject: microsoft settlement-influence peddling
    Dear US District judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly,
    The fact that Microsoft has blatantly failed to comply with any 
honest behavior including the Tunney Act, as evidenced by the 
interpretation of the acts creator, via his affadavit filed with the 
court, comes as no surprise to anyone.
    Surely any company which doesn't disclose that their top 
monopoly monger, StevieBoy Balmer met with his kin, (Dickie to drunk 
to disclose his three drunken driving convictions Cheney,) can't be 
counted on to comply with a little ole paperwork disclosing the 
millions spent lobbying the rest of congress and their staff's.
    We all know Steve and Dick didn't talk technology shop. They 
talked about the EnronBushCheney energy monopoly policy! But hey, by 
golly, thats priviledged information according to Dick. Or maybe 
they had a concensual sexual relationship, But hey a concenting 
sexual relationship isn't covered under executive priviledge !!!! So 
forget antitrust,enrongate,insider trading influence peddling and 
the rest! Lets be good Republicans and spend 60 million and see if 
those secret meetings were were about Steve bobbing
    Dick!



MTC-00028680

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw

[[Page 28359]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
117 James Garland Road
Hot Springs, AR 71913
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am glad to see that the Microsoft case is coming to a close. I 
believe that you should settle the case pursuant to the terms of the 
agreement you reached with Microsoft in November 2001.
    This settlement agreement provides you not only with the chance 
to bring a close to the federal government's case, but also to help 
the economy in the process.
    Microsoft's agreement to discontinue a number of its more 
restrictive business practices should have a positive impact on the 
computer and software sector of the economy. The agreement to allow 
competition from non-Microsoft software within Windows is of 
particular importance because it could provide immediate 
opportunities for designers and developers of non-Microsoft software 
products.
    I hope you approve the settlement and close this case as soon as 
the law allows. Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Suzanne C. Akers
    Robert C. Akers
    E-mail--;[email protected]



MTC-00028681

From: Franziska Raedeker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I want a fair choice of several options in computer 
applications.
    1. The proposed settlement is not in the public interest. The 
settlement leaves the Microsoft monopoly intact. It is vague and 
unenforceable. It leaves Microsoft with numerous opportunities to 
exempt itself from crucial provisions.
    2. The proposed settlement ignores the all-important 
applications barrier to entry which must be reduced or eliminated. 
Any settlement or order needs to provide ways for consumers to run 
any of the 70,000 existing Windows applications on any other 
operating system.
    3. Consumers need a la carte competition and choice so they, not 
Microsoft, decide what products are on their computers. The 
settlement must provide ways for any combination of non-Microsoft 
operating systems, applications, and software components to run 
properly with Microsoft products.
    4. The remedies proposed by the Plaintiff Litigating States are 
in the public interest and absolutely necessary, but they are not 
sufficient without the remedies mentioned above.
    5. The court must hold public proceedings under the Tunney Act, 
and these proceedings must give citizens and consumer groups an 
equal opportunity to participate, along with Microsoft's competitors 
and customers.
    Sincerely,
    Franziska Raedeker
    925 Spruce Street
    Berkeley, CA 94707
    [email protected]



MTC-00028682

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Any company that dominates the vehicles by which companies 
achieve daily tasks and goals (while maintaining the illusion of 
open market participation, owns and controls the very same roads 
that facilitate those vital components of commerce AND maintains 
mafia-esque enforcement practices to insure as few vehicles from any 
and all rival competitors are equipped with the necessary technology 
and mechanisms to use those purported ``public'' roads 
constitutes the key issue in assessing the true injustice of 
monopolistic practices.
    To my mind the appropriate analogy would be if Ford or GM 
suddenly decides to buy up all the major highways in the US and then 
equip those highways with exclusive features and benefits that can 
be only realized if you own their car. As a matter of fact, if your 
vehicle is not made by that dominant manufacturer, it just doesn't 
drive as well when it accesses those highways...it seems to go 
slower, has trouble with maneuvering and steering and the radio 
signal is weak or generates nothing but static. As a daily consumer 
of those highways, one becomes quickly convinced to buy a vehicle 
manufactured by the same company that is optimized for those 
highways by virtue of their exclusive ownership and that can also 
take exclusive advantage of any and all the extras and amenities 
that are not accessible to any other manufacturers'' vehicles.
    Microsoft must be disavowed of their monopoly in being made to 
relinquish ownership either the Windows operating system or the 
right to develop and market the primary applications which are 
optimized to run within the Windows OS environment. Individually, 
each currently dominates their respective markets (solely by virtue 
of their combined ownership) and jointly present a total supremacy 
of the marketplace in both areas.



MTC-00028684

From: Gossett, David M.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:5 1pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Attached please find:
    (1) Cover letter;
    (2) Comments of Computer & Communications Industry 
Association on the Revised Proposed Final Judgment;
    (3) Declaration of Joseph E. Stiglitz and Jason Furman; and
    (4) Declaration of Edward Roeder.
    Please confirm receipt of this message. Thank you. Note that we 
are having a copy of these documents delivered by messenger as well.
    Regards,
    David Gossett
    David M. Gossett ++ Mayer, Brown & Platt
    1909 K Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006
    T: 202.263.3384 F: 202.263.5384
    [email protected]
    www.appellate.net/gossett
MAYER, BROWN & PLATT
555 COLLEGE AVENUE
PALO ALTO, CA 94306-;1433
DONALD M. FALK
DIRECT DIAL (650) 331-;2030
DirECT FAX (650) 331-;2068
[email protected]
MAIN TELEPHONE
(650) 331-;2000
MAIN FAX
(650) 331-;2060
January 28, 2002
VIA E-MAIL AND MESSENGER
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
Re: Microsoft Settlement: United States v. Microsoft Corp., No. 
98-;1232 Tunney Act proceedings
    Dear Renata:
    Enclosed please find the following comments on the settlement:
    (1) Comments of Computer & Communications Industry 
Association on the Revised Proposed Final Judgment;
    (2) Declaration of Joseph E. Stiglitz and Jason Furman; and
    (3) Declaration of Edward Roeder.
    Thank you for your assistance. Please feel free to call my 
Washington colleague, David Gossett (202-;263-;3384) or me 
if you have any questions.
    Hope all is well with you. It's a long way from the ELQ days.
    Sincerely,
    Donald M. Falk
    Enclosures
    CHARLOTTE CHICAGO COLOGNE FRANKFURT HOUSTON LONDON LOS ANGELES 
NEW YORK PALO ALTO PARIS WASHINGTON INDEPENDENT MEXICO CITY 
CORRESPONDENT: JAUREGUI, NAVARRETE, NADER Y ROJAS
    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 COMPUTER & COMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION 
ON THE REVISED PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT
    Donald M. Falk Edward J. Black
    Mayer, Brown & Platt Jason M. Mahler
    555 College Avenue Computer & Communications
    Palo Alto, California 94306 Industry Association
    (650) 331-;2030 666 11th Street NW
    (650) 331-;2060 facsimile Washington, DC 20001

[[Page 28360]]

    (202) 783-;0070
    David M. Gossett
    Mayer, Brown & Platt
    1909 K Street, NW
    Washington, DC 20006
    (202) 263-;3000
    TABLE OF CONTENT
    INTRODUCTION
A. Liability Rests On Microsoft's Suppression Of Middleware Threats 
That Threatened To Erode The Applications Barrier To Entry--;6
B. The RPFJ Does Not Prevent Microsoft From Abusing Its Position And 
Does Not Meet Basic Standards For An Antitrust Remedy--;9
C. The Obligations That Supposedly Restore Competitive Conditions In 
Fact Make Microsoft Do Virtually Nothing Against Its Will--;11
D. The Public Interest Requires An Effective Remedy That The RPFJ 
Does Not Provide--;15
I. The Tunney Act Requires Close Scrutiny Under The Present 
Circumstances--;18
A. The Government's Victory On Liability Removes Litigation Risk And 
Therefore Limits Deference--;19
1. The Imposition And Affirmance Of Liability Remove Any 
Constitutional Concerns About Searching Review And Require The Court 
To Perform Its Constitutional Duty--;19
2. The Extensive Record And Judicial Opinions Provide Clear, 
Manageable Standards For Substantive Review Of The RPFJ--;23
B. Broad Deference Is Particularly Inappropriate Because The 
Circumstances Are Suspicious--;26
1. Microsoft's Manifestly Inadequate Disclosure Under The Tunney 
Act's Sunshine Provisions Weighs Strongly Against Judicial Deference 
To The Terms Of The RPFJ--;26
2. The RPFJ Represents A Swift And Significant Retreat By 
DOJ--;32
3. The CIS Overstates The Terms Of The RPFJ, Reflecting The 
Indefensibility of the RPFJ Itself--;33
II. the rpfj must meet the legal standards normally applicable to 
antitrust remedies--;34
A. The Relief Should ``Terminate The Illegal 
Monopoly''.--;35
B. The Relief Should Prevent ``Practices Likely To Result In 
Monopolization In The Future''--;36
C. The Relief Should ``Deny To The Defendant The Fruits Of Its 
Statutory Violation''--;37
D. Broader Principles Applicable To Injunctive Relief Also Should 
Inform The Analysis Of The RPFJ--;37
III. The RPFJ falls far short of providing a remedy for proven 
offenses upheld on appeal--;39
A. DOJ's Effort To Minimize The Scope Of The DC Circuit's Affirmance 
Cannot Obscure The Failure Of The RPFJ To Remediate Clear, Proven 
Violations--;39
B. The RPFJ Simply Restates The Antitrust Laws At Critical Points 
And Thus Forfeits The Clarity And Efficiency Of The Contempt 
Process--;41
C. The RPFJ Provides No Remedy For Microsoft's Suppression Of The 
Browser And Java--;42
IV. The Icon-focused Oem flexibility Provisions Are 
Ineffective--;44
A. The PFJ Permits Microsoft's To Continue Illegally Commingling 
Middleware Code With The Code For The Monopoly Operating 
System--;45
1. The DC Circuit Specifically Condemned Commingling Twice--;46
2. The Failure To Limit Commingling Is Critical Because Ubiquity 
Trumps Technology In Platform Software Markets--;49
3. The RPFJ Retreats From The 1995 Consent Decree--;52
4. The RPFJ Encourages Illegal Commingling By Placing The Critical 
Definition of Windows Under Microsoft's Exclusive Control--;53
B. Empirical Evidence Shows That The Icon Flexibility Provisions 
Will Not Be Used--;54
C. The Icon Flexibility Provisions Require--;And 
Accomplish--;Little--;55
D. The 14-Day Sweep Provision Effectively Nullifies RPFJ 
III(H)--;57
E. By Placing The Burden To Restore Competition On OEMs, The PFJ 
Leads To No Remedy At All For Much Of The Misconduct At 
Issue--;58
F. The RPFJ Permits Microsoft To Control Consumers'' Access To 
Innovation To Suit Its Monopolistic Aims--;59
V. The API and Communications protocol Disclosure Provisions Are 
ineffective--;60
A. The API Provisions Require Little, If Anything, Beyond Current 
Disclosure Practices In Microsoft's Self-Interest--;60
B. The RPFJ Does Not Require Disclosure of Windows APIs, But Rather 
Lets Microsoft Determine The Scope of Disclosure Through The Design 
and Labeling of Its Operating System And Middleware--;61
C. The Definition of ``Microsoft Middleware'' Gives 
Microsoft Further Leeway to Limit Its Disclosure Obligation--;63
1. The RPFJ Requires Microsoft To Disclose Only The APIs Used By The 
``User Interface'' Or Shell Of Microsoft 
Middleware--;64
2. The RPFJ Requires Microsoft To Disclose APIs Only For 
``Microsoft Middleware'' That Is Distributed Separately 
From Windows, Yet Is Distributed To Update Windows--;65
3. The Limitation Of Microsoft Middleware To 
``Trademarked'' Products Further Eviscerates The API 
Disclosure Provision--;65
D. The Disclosure Provisions--;Particularly Those Concerning 
``Communications Protocols''--;Depend On An Undefined 
And Thus Unenforceable Concept of 
``Interoperability''--;69
E. The Narrow Scope Of The Disclosure Provisions Contrasts Sharply 
With The Broader Definitions In DOJ's Earlier Remedy 
Proposals--;70
F. The ``Security'' Exceptions in Section III(J) Permit 
Microsoft To Avoid Its Disclosure Obligations--;72
1. The Exclusions for Security-Related APIs and Protocols in 
RPFJ(J)(1) Permit Microsoft To Hobble Disclosures That Are Critical 
in Internet Computing--;73
2. RPFJ III(J)(2) Permits Microsoft To Refuse Effective Disclosure 
To A Range Of Potentially Effective Competitors--;77
G. RPFJ III(I) Would Place A Judicial Imprimatur On 
Microsoft's Use Of Technical Information As A Lever To Extract 
Competitors'' Intellectual Property
VI. built-in delays exacerbate the decree's unjustifiably brief 
duration--;82
VII. Additional weaknesses undercut the rpfj
A. The Anti-Retaliation Provisions Are Deeply Flawed
B. Microsoft Can Evade The Price Discrimination Restrictions
C. Microsoft Can Enforce De Facto Exclusivity
VIII. THE RPFJ'S ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS ARE FUNDAMENTALLY INADEQUATE
CONCLUSION
    INTEREST OF THE COMMENTER
    The Computer & Communications Industry Association 
(``CCIA'') is an association of computer, communications, 
Internet and technology companies that range from small 
entrepreneurial firms to some of the largest members of the 
industry. CCIA's members include equipment manufacturers, software 
developers, providers of electronic commerce, networking, 
telecommunications and on-line services, resellers, systems 
integrators, and third-party vendors. Its member companies employ 
nearly one million persons and generate annual revenues exceeding 
$300 billion. CCIA's mission is to further the interests of its 
members, their customers, and the industry at large by serving as 
the leading industry advocate in promoting open, barrier-free 
competition in the offering of computer and communications products 
and services worldwide. CCIA's motto is ``Open Markets, Open 
Systems, Open Networks, and Full, Fair and Open Competition,'' 
and its website is at www.ccianet.org.
    For nearly 30 years, CCIA has supported antitrust policy that 
ensures competition and a level playing field in the computer and 
communications industries. That involvement antedates the founding 
of Microsoft, much less its acquisition of its first monopoly and 
its refinement of anticompetitive techniques. CCIA supported the 
Tunney Act in the 1973 congressional hearings preceding the 
enactment of that legislation, and played active roles on the side 
of competition in other significant antitrust cases, including those 
against AT&T and IBM. Before participating as amicus curiae at 
the trial and appellate stages of the current Microsoft case, CCIA 
participated as a leading amicus curiae in the proceedings examining 
the last Microsoft consent decree in 1994-1995, both in the district 
court and in the court of appeals. As a consequence, CCIA and its 
members are intimately familiar with the shortcomings of that 
decree, and its failure to prevent or deter Microsoft from 
continuing on an anticompetitive course. Microsoft's conduct in the 
intervening years, including the period while this case has been 
litigated, has only sharpened CCIA's awareness of Microsoft's 
dedication to driving out competition from as many aspects of the 
computer-software and related industries as possible. Microsoft may 
repeat

[[Page 28361]]

its attempts to mischaracterize CCIA as a mere voice for 
competitors, but that innuendo cannot withstand scrutingy in light 
of the diversity of CCIA's membership now and over the years, 
combined with CCIA's 30 years of vigorous commitment to supporting 
openness and competition in the computer technology and 
communications industries. In hopes that a meaningful remedy in this 
case will prevent Microsoft from further expanding the scope of its 
monopoly, and with the certainty that the current Revised Proposed 
Final Judgment (``RPFJ'') falls far short of that task, 
CCIA submits this analysis of the RPFJ in conjunction with the 
economic analysis of Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz and his 
colleague Jason Furman, and the Declaration of Edward Roeder.
    INTRODUCTION
    The Tunney Act was designed to constrain the Department of 
Justice (``DOJ'') from entering into settlements that 
provided DOJ with an exit from an antitrust case but did not provide 
the public with a remedy commensurate with the defendant's antitrust 
violations. The Revised Proposed Final Judgment (RPFJ) in this case 
does not provide adequate relief for the extensive and thoroughly 
proven antitrust violations it purports to remedy.
    Review of the RPFJ in this case should be especially searching 
because there can be no doubt about Microsoft's liability. For the 
first time in the history of the Tunney Act, the Court will review a 
proposed settlement reached after liability has been not only 
imposed, but unanimously affirmed on the government's most sweeping 
and economically significant theory. That clear-cut liability, and 
the voluminous Findings of Fact and trial record, place the Court in 
this case in a different position from courts reviewing pre-trial 
settlements.
    Because there is no litigation risk on liability, the Court is 
uniquely situated to evaluate any asserted litigation risk as to 
remedy. Established principles of antitrust relief provide the Court 
in this case with concrete, recognized standards to ensure that the 
settlement serves the public interest in a way that courts reviewing 
pre-trial settlements cannot. Magnifying the need for close 
measurement of the RPFJ by objective principles is Microsoft's 
silence, in its filing under 15 U.S.C. 16(g), about its 
effort to truncate this case by a lobbying campaign of unprecedented 
scope directed at the Executive and Legislative Branches 
alike--;despite extensive public reports of that lobbying. 
Microsoft's effort to deny the obvious gives rise to an inference 
that it has something to hide.
    The terms of the RPFJ provide the strongest reason for close 
scrutiny, because they cannot withstand analysis. The RPFJ would not 
provide a meaningful remedy for Microsoft's extensive campaign of 
exclusionary acts. That campaign suppressed the most serious threat 
to Microsoft's monopoly in the past decade, and not only prevented 
the erosion of the applications barrier to entry that insulates the 
monopoly, but increased the bar to new competition. The RPFJ ignores 
some of the most significant holdings of the court of appeals, 
however, including its separate imposition of liability for 
Microsoft's commingling of middleware code with the code for the 
Windows operating system.
    More fundamentally, the RPFJ misses the point of Microsoft's 
illegal conduct, which was to prevent erosion of the applications 
barrier to entry by preventing middleware from attracting software 
developers to the middleware application programming interfaces 
(``APIs''). The RPFJ's basic premises, moreover, ignore 
the current economic and technical realities of the computer and 
software markets. In the seven years since Microsoft began the 
illegal conduct at issue in this case, Microsoft has strengthened 
its operating systems monopoly. The Internet browser, formerly a 
threat to that monopoly, has become an adjunct to it, with 
Microsoft's 91% share of that product adding further insulation to 
the operating systems monopoly. Microsoft's unadjudicated monopoly 
over personal productivity applications--;a key to the 
applications barrier to entry in the operating systems 
market--;likewise has grown in market share and market power.
    But the RPFJ does not try to deprive Microsoft of any of the 
benefits of its illegal activity directed at the browser and other 
middleware. DOJ's remedial theory rests entirely on unidentified 
future middleware threats. In fact, there are no technologies today 
presenting a threat as intense as that presented by the Netscape 
browser and Java, and the duration of the RPFJ is so short that it 
almost certainly will expire before any significant new threats 
materialize.
    Aside from some restrictions on commercial retaliation that at 
best might keep matters from getting worse, the RPFJ relies on two 
sets of putative obligations to achieve a more competitive market. 
But neither the provisions aimed at original equipment manufacturer 
(``OEM'') flexibility nor those addressing information 
disclosure requirements in fact require anything competitively 
meaningful. In large part, these provisions replicate Microsoft's 
current business practices respecting the disclosure of technical 
information and the configuration of end-user access to middleware 
products.
    The OEM flexibility sections in RPFJ III(C) 
and III(H) are literally superficial, principally addressing desktop 
icons rather than the middleware code itself, which contains the 
APIs relied on by software applications developers. Even if 
successful, the flexibility provisions would not affect the 
applications barrier to entry. Moreover, these provisions largely 
restate current business practices or provide OEMs with flexibility 
that both Microsoft and DOJ understand from experience will never be 
exercised. OEMs have little or no incentive to exercise their 
options; if they decline to do so, then the flexibility provisions 
will have no competitive consequences for the industry.
    The RPFJ's information disclosure sections 
(III(D) and III(E)) are so transparently 
insubstantial as to cast doubt on the entire proposal. The purported 
disclosure requirements trace back to definitions that are committed 
to Microsoft's control, are circular, or simply do not exist. 
Neither DOJ nor any other objective observer could have any idea 
precisely which APIs or protocols must be disclosed.
    The RPFJ's provisions and definitions are so vague that only two 
practical results are possible. Either everyone will simply ignore 
the decree, which plainly would not be in the public interest for an 
antitrust remedy, or the Court will have to take primary 
responsibility for defining its terms during enforcement 
proceedings. DOJ's answer seems to be to let Microsoft set the terms 
of its obligations: the RPFJ gives the defendant ``sole 
discretion'' to define the decree's most important term, 
``Windows Operating System Product,'' which appears 46 
times to delimit the RPFJ's 10 substantive provisions.
    Indeed, much of DOJ's Competitive Impact Statement 
(``CIS'') seems to reflect an understanding that the RPFJ 
is inadequate in several critical respects. The CIS defines terms 
not defined in the RPFJ, exaggerates the scope of certain RPFJ 
provisions, and redefines other terms in order to minimize the 
impact of some of the broad exemptions in the RPFJ. It is the RPFJ 
that the Court would have to enforce, however, as the CIS is not 
part of the contract between DOJ and Microsoft.
    In sum, although the RPFJ's provisions superficially seem to 
restrict Microsoft's practices, there is no substance behind them. 
The provisions accomplish little beyond laying down criteria for 
Microsoft to follow in order to avoid any interference with its 
continuing campaign of illegal monopolization.
    The terms of the RPFJ, as much as the circumstances of the 
settlement, strongly suggest that Microsoft and the Department of 
Justice shared a desire to end this case, rather than to provide an 
effective remedy for Microsoft's substantial antitrust violations. 
The 1995 consent decree with Microsoft produced uninterrupted 
illegal monopolization, prompting the filing of this case in 1998. 
The Court can expect the same with this decree. The RPFJ, if 
approved, might temporarily end DOJ's involvement, but would not 
provide the type of remedy that the public interest and the Tunney 
Act demand. To the contrary, because the harm to the competitive 
process caused by Microsoft's adjudicated illegal conduct is 
certain, a remedy that masks but does not cure that harm 
affirmatively injures the public interest, and therefore should be 
rejected.
    A. Liability Rests On Microsoft's Suppression Of Middleware 
Threats
    That Threatened To Erode The Applications Barrier To Entry This 
case is about Microsoft's devastatingly thorough suppression of 
threats to its Windows operating system (``OS'') monopoly 
by ``middleware.'' That monopoly was insulated from 
competition by the applications barrier to entry described by the 
court of appeals and the CIS. See United States v. Microsoft Corp., 
253 F.3d 34, 55-;56 (DC Cir. 2001) (``Microsoft 
III''); CIS 10-;11, 66 Fed. Reg. 59,452, 59,462 (2001). 
See also Declaration of Joseph E. Stiglitz & Jason Furman 
7-;9 (``Stiglitz/Furman Dec.'') (attached). The 
middleware at issue in this case exposed APIs that could be used by 
software applications developers to write programs

[[Page 28362]]

that did not rely on the underlying Windows operating system. As 
Microsoft recognized, if developers embraced non- Microsoft 
middleware APIs and designed their products to run on that 
middleware rather than directly on an operating system, 
``middleware'' of this kind ``would erode the 
applications barrier to entry,'' as ``applications * * * 
could run on any operating system on which the middleware product 
was present with little, if any, porting.'' Microsoft III, 253 
F.3d at 55. The threat that ``middleware could usurp the 
operating system's platform function,'' id. at 53, prompted 
Microsoft's anticompetitive conduct.
    But non-Microsoft middleware can become a competing platform 
only if developers write software that calls on the non-Microsoft 
middleware APIs. Most developers will create software only to run on 
platforms that are distributed widely enough for the developers to 
be reasonably certain that the APIs (on which their programs rely) 
will be present on most, if not all PCs. Likewise, if developers can 
be certain that Microsoft's middleware APIs are present on all PCs, 
this will strongly influence their initial decision as to whether it 
is worth the effort to write applications to alternative, non-
Microsoft middleware APIs.
    The successful theory of the case--;proved and accepted by 
two courts--;is that Microsoft engaged in an ``extensive 
campaign of exclusionary acts'' that were designed ``to 
maintain its monopoly'' by suppressing middleware threats posed 
by the Netscape Navigator Internet browser and the cross-platform 
Java technologies. CIS 9, 66 Fed. Reg. 59,462; Microsoft III, 253 
F.3d at 53-;56, 60-;62, 74-;78. Microsoft's response 
to this threat guaranteed that developers would not use the APIs of 
competing middleware, destroying the platform threat.
    Because Microsoft has a monopoly over the OS, it can ensure that 
its own versions of a middleware product have universal 
distribution, so that Microsoft's middle- ware APIs will be present 
on all PCs. For example, because Windows is both an operating system 
and a distribution channel for Microsoft's technologies, Microsoft 
could and did ensure that the code for its Internet Explorer 
(``IE'') browser was distributed to every PC.
    Ensuring that the code for Microsoft middleware was on every PC 
accomplished two related goals. First, it guaranteed instant and 
unassailable ubiquity for the Microsoft version of the middleware 
and the middleware APIs on which developers rely. Second, the forced 
ubiquity of Microsoft middleware prevents competing middleware from 
achieving ubiquity, or anything like it, because few distribution 
channels will incur the support and other costs of distributing two 
versions of the same functionality. A key theory of the case is that 
the applications barrier to entry could have been eroded only if 
developers chose and used alternative middleware platforms on which 
to write software. End-user access to middleware was significant 
only to the extent it influenced developers'' choices to write 
to the APIs of that middleware.
    Thus, ensuring that the code for the Microsoft version of 
middleware is on every PC destroys the competitive threat presented 
by the competing middleware's APIs, since few developers will them 
in preference to Microsoft middleware APIS that are certain to be 
ubiquitous. This fact provides the essential context for any 
meaningful analysis of the information disclosure and OEM 
flexibility provisions of the RPFJ.
    B. The RPFJ Does Not Prevent Microsoft From Abusing Its Position 
And Does Not Meet Basic Standards For An Antitrust Remedy
    The DC Circuit 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.''' Microsoft HI, 
253 F.3d at 103 (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)). As the District Court recognized in 
beginning remedy proceedings on remand (9/28/01 Tr. 6-;7), not 
one word in the DC Circuit's opinion suggests the slightest 
antipathy toward any conduct remedy related to the illegal 
monopolization that the Court of Appeals exhaustively condemned.\1\ 
The District Court warned the plaintiffs to be ``cautiously 
attentive to the efficacy of every element of the proposed 
relief.'' 9/28/01 Tr. 8. That is, the plaintiffs must make sure 
that the proposed remedy works.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\Indeed, in denying rehearing, the DC Circuit made 
crystal clear that ``[n]othing in the Court's opinion is 
intended to preclude the District Court's consideration of remedy 
issues.'' Order, at 1 (DC Cir. Aug. 2, 2001) (per curiam).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    That admonition appears to have fallen on deaf ears. Because 
liability has been established and affirmed in great detail, the 
scope of the District Court's appropriate deference to DOJ is 
extremely limited because the range of permissible action by DOJ is 
closely confined. There is no litigation risk other than the risk 
that the District Court would not approve a particular remedy, or 
that the District Court's exercise of discretion in approving a 
remedy might be reversed on appeal. A remedy, even one imposed by 
agreement, must provide adequate relief for the violations that have 
been proved, however. DOJ is entitled to deference only for choices 
that fall within the range of adequate relief.
    The RPFJ misses the point of the central theory of liability. 
The RPFJ does not impose certain, enforceable, or competitively 
significant obligations on Microsoft to restore competition or to 
avoid suppressing future threats. The RPFJ allows Microsoft to keep 
every anticompetitive gain that resulted from its illegal conduct, 
simply requiring Microsoft to find new and slightly different ways 
to accomplish its anticompetitive goals. DOJ seems to recognize that 
the case focused on two specific products--;Netscape Navigator 
and Java--;that embodied the broader threat of middleware and 
the Internet to the stability and significance of Microsoft's 
monopoly. The RPFJ does nothing to restore the specific competitive 
threat posed by an independent Internet browser. It does nothing to 
restore the threat of cross-platform Java. And it does nothing to 
protect any other middleware threat--;in the unlikely event that 
another such threat might arise within the short duration of the 
RPFJ--;from much similar exclusionary conduct, or indeed from 
the identical commingling of code that sealed Netscape's fate. 
Rather, the RPFJ appears to assume that it is still 1995, and that 
the threat of the Internet browser can begin anew without 
confronting a more thoroughly entrenched Microsoft. The RPFJ does 
not take account of the impact on participants at different levels 
of the computer and software industries of an additional seven years 
of Microsoft's anticompetitive abuses. That view does not accord 
with reality, and the provisions intended to permit open competition 
in that counterfactual world cannot achieve their goal.
    C. The Obligations That Supposedly Restore Competitive 
Conditions In Fact Make Microsoft Do Virtually Nothing Against Its 
Will
    The RPFJ purports to give current and future middleware the 
ability to present the same threats to the Microsoft monopoly that 
Netscape and Java presented before the onset of Microsoft's illegal 
conduct. DOJ describes the obligations in the RPFJ as if they would 
have stopped Microsoft's suppression of Netscape, and as if they 
would allow rival middleware vendors to obtain the technical 
information that they need to ``emulate Microsoft's integrated 
functions'' (Testimony of Charles James before Senate Judiciary 
Committee 7 (Dec. 12, 2001)) and to step into the shoes of Microsoft 
middleware in relation to Windows and the Windows monopoly. The RPFJ 
does not achieve those goals.
    Most of the RPFJ reduces to two sets of obligations, along with 
some prohibitions on exclusive deals and on retaliation against 
those who take advantage of Microsoft's obligations. One set of 
obligations appears to restrain Microsoft from taking particular 
actions to interfere with OEMs'' placement of the icons of Non-
Microsoft Middleware on their machines, or with end-users'' use 
of those products. These OEM flexibility provisions principally rely 
on the OEMs to provide a remedy for Microsoft's misconduct. The 
other set of obligations requires a certain degree of disclosure of 
APIs and Communications Protocols to allow competing software 
products can ``interoperate''--; an undefined 
term--;with the monopoly OS.
    For the most part, the obligations placed on Microsoft by the 
RPFJ simply replicate current options voluntarily provided by 
Microsoft. For example, Microsoft must continue to disclose the APIs 
it currently discloses in the Microsoft Developers'' Network 
(MSDN), a program Microsoft developed to further its self-interest 
in making the Windows platform popular with software developers. And 
Microsoft must continue to allow end-users to delete icons from the 
desktop and start menu. Such provisions at most simply prohibit 
Microsoft from making matters worse than they are after Microsoft's 
years-long anticompetitive campaign. Indeed, the RPFJ in some 
instances specifically approves potential

[[Page 28363]]

misuse of Microsoft's current voluntary implementations of the 
flexibility and disclosure provisions.
    To begin with the flexibility provisions, their chief flaw is 
their focus on icons rather than on middleware functionality. This 
is literally a superficial approach. Microsoft can include its own 
middleware and middleware APIs on every PC. Developers will know 
those APIs are there and consequently will write to them in 
preference to the APIs of a competing product that may or may not be 
on a particular machine. No provision of the RPFJ restricts 
Microsoft's insertion and commingling of middleware code into the 
``Windows Operating System Product'' bundle that Microsoft 
receives the right to define for decree purposes ``in its sole 
discretion.'' RPFJ VI(U). From the point of view 
of developers--;and thus of the ability of middleware to erode 
the applications barrier to entry--;these 
``flexibility'' provisions are meaningless.
    Even to the extent that competing middleware vendors might 
obtain favorable placement for their products'' icons in 
preference to the icons for Microsoft products, that achievement 
would be both superficial and temporary. The functionality of the 
Microsoft product would remain on the machine, and Microsoft could 
insist on its invocation for a variety of functions. And, 14 days 
after a PC first boots up, Microsoft would be free to nag users to 
click a ``Clean Desktop Wizard'' which would organize 
icons in the way that suited Microsoft. There is nothing in the RPFJ 
to stop that ``Wizard'' from resetting default 
applications to coincide with Microsoft's preferences as well, or 
even from enhancing the product so that it becomes a Clean File 
Wizard to remove code of competing middleware with a single click.
    These provisions place responsibility for restoring competition 
on innocent OEMs and ISVs rather than on Microsoft. And many 
provisions give end-users what they have now: the ability to remove 
an icon from the desktop or a program menu by right-clicking it and 
selecting ``Delete,'' or by dragging it to the Recycle 
Bin. The provisions do change the status quo in one way. The 
``Add/Remove'' function, which now removes some underlying 
code for applications, will only remove a few icons when the removed 
application is Microsoft middleware.
    The disclosure provisions are no better. The RPFJ requires 
Microsoft to disclose APIs between ``Microsoft 
Middleware'' and a ``Windows Operating System 
Product,'' but the definitions of those terms are so completely 
within Microsoft's control that it is impossible to tell whether 
Microsoft ever would have to disclose an API that might have 
competitive significance. As noted above, a ``Windows Operating 
System Product'' is whatever Microsoft says it is. 
``Microsoft Middleware'' must be distributed separately 
from the OS (unlike, e.g., the current version of Windows Media 
Player). ``Microsoft Middleware'' must be 
``Trademarked'' in a way that would exclude Windows 
Messenger, may exclude Windows Media Player, and certainly would 
exclude any products that followed Microsoft's practice of simply 
combining the Microsoft(r) or Windows(r) marks with a generic or 
descriptive term.
    Indeed, because ``Microsoft Middleware'' need not mean 
any more than the user interface of a middleware functionality that 
meets the other definitional requirements, see RPFJ 
VI(J)(4), the only APIs that must be disclosed are 
those between the middleware user interface and 
``Windows,'' which Microsoft in its discretion can define 
to include all of any given middleware functionality. See id. 
VI(U). Microsoft need not disclose how the middleware 
actually invokes Windows to work, except for the way that the OS 
displays the middleware's shell.
    The disclosure provisions applying to Communications Protocols 
are similarly weakened by non-existent definitions. The disclosable 
Protocols are those required to 
``interoperate''--;whatever that may mean--;with 
equally undefined ``Microsoft server operating products.'' 
RPFJ III(E). In addition, the Communications Protocol 
disclosure provisions are limited by sweeping exceptions applying to 
security protocols that are intertwined with all significant 
computer-to-computer communication. See id. III(J)(I). 
Microsoft can withhold parts of those Protocols (and, indeed, parts 
of APIs) on the basis that disclosure would compromise security of 
an installation.
    If this exemption were limited to the customer-specific data 
like encryption keys or authorization tokens, it would be necessary, 
not objectionable. But the exemption explicitly permits Microsoft to 
withhold portions of the Protocols and APIs themselves, which 
necessarily makes ``interoperation'' (as that term 
normally is used) incomplete. Interoperation, however, is an all-or-
nothing state. Software that can use only parts of APIs and 
Communications Protocols simply cannot ``intemperate'' 
with the software on the other side of the API or Protocol.
    But that is not all. RPFJ III(J)(2) permits 
Microsoft to refuse to (disclose security-related Protocols or APIs 
to any company that does not meet Microsoft's standards of business 
viability or its standards for a business need. Again, little if 
anything is left of this disclosure requirement if Microsoft chooses 
to resist disclosure when that serves its anticompetitive goals.
    One thing is certain. Unless Microsoft and DOJ alike render the 
RPFJ irrelevant by simply ignoring it, the District Court will be 
faced again and again with the task of interpreting the RPFJ's 
indistinct provisions. Microsoft has demonstrated its incentive and 
ability to contest even the most seemingly obvious points of any 
court order.
    D. The Public Interest Requires An Effective Remedy That The 
RPFJ Does Not Provide
    Despite the belated efforts of DOJ to minimize the scope of this 
case, it remains the largest, most successful prosecution for 
monopolization liability since at least the Second World War. The DC 
Circuit affirmed ``the District Court's holding that Microsoft 
violated ? 2 of the Sherman Act in a variety of ways.'' 253 
F.3d at 59. The breadth of that holding is clear from the 20 Federal 
Reporter pages consumed by the court's detailed discussion of 
Microsoft's array of exclusionary behavior. The competitive 
significance of the conduct condemned by that holding is explained 
both in the opinion, in the Declaration of Joseph E. Stiglitz and 
Jason Furman (``Stiglitz/Furman Dec.'') 16-;20, and 
in the Comment of Robert E. Litan, Roger G. Noll, and William D. 
Nordhaus (``Litan/Noll/Nordhaus Comment'') 12-;31, 
among other submissions for this Tunney Act proceeding. The 
difficulties encountered by peripheral claims are irrelevant, 
particularly because all of the challenged conduct supported 
monopolization liability in addition to one or more of the since-
abandoned theories. The supposed ``narrowing'' left a huge 
monopolization case with a stark judgment affirming the government's 
theory. e RPFJ does not provide a remedy commensurate with that 
liability.
    The RPFJ is insufficient for another overarching reason. The 
passage of time has only exacerbated the problem of Microsoft's 
successful abuse of its operating systems monopoly to extend that 
monopoly to embrace other sectors of computing and to forestall 
threats to the monopoly from those sectors. Microsoft's monopoly 
over Internet browsing is complete, as its current 91% market share 
indicates. Julia Angwin, et al., AOL Sues Microsoft Over Netscape in 
Case That Could Seek Billions, WALL ST. J., Jan. 23, 2002, at B 1. 
Even the RPFJ recognizes, albeit through toothless provisions, that 
Microsoft is using its desktop OS monopoly to force greater use of 
its server operating systems. And Microsoft's efforts to use the 
inclusion of its Passport authentication software on every Windows 
machine as a means of directing through a Microsoft server all 
authentication and identification transactions--;gaining a 
literal chokehold over the communications aspect of Internet 
computing--;is so significant that Microsoft sought and obtained 
an exemption in the RPFJ specifically designed to excuse that known 
monopolistic strategy. See RPFJ 
III(H)(1)[second]\2\ see also id. 
Ill(J).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\RPFJ III(H) contains two subsections (1) 
and (2). We distinguish between the two sets of subsections with the 
bracketed terms ``first'' and ``second.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Microsoft has made ample use of the seven years since the 
beginning of the conduct at issue in this case. The RPFJ is wholly 
inadequate even on its own terms, which assume that the world has 
returned to 1995. But the RPFJ does not begin to address what has 
happened since then. The public interest in a remedy that achieves 
what antitrust law says it must cannot be obscured by focusing 
either on the preference of the technology industry for standards, 
or on the never-litigated assumption that Microsoft obtained its 
original operating systems monopoly legally in the 1980s. The last 
premise, after all, still suggests that the last ten years or so of 
Microsoft's hegemony have resulted from the illegal acts that 
prompted two government antitrust lawsuits. If DOJ's enforcement 
history is to be credited, Microsoft has at least doubled the life 
of its monopoly through illegal conduct.
    In addition, even if the nature of software platforms generally, 
or computer operating

[[Page 28364]]

systems in particular, results in transitory single-firm dominance, 
that does not mean that competition has no place, or that entrenched 
monopoly is somehow without social costs. See Stiglitz/Furman Dec. 
13-;16. Innovation results in the periodic replacement or 
``leapfrogging'' of one standard by another. This is not 
some meaningless replacement of one monopoly with another, as some 
would have it. To the contrary, as economists--;including those 
of the Chicago school--;have recognized, ``competition * * 
* `for the field''' provides consumers with 
substantial benefits. See Microsoft III, 253 F.3d at 49 and sources 
cited therein. But if competition in a market is limited in scope to 
serial competition for transitory dominance, predatory conduct is 
especially harmful. See generally Stiglitz/Furman Dec. 13-;16. 
The monopolist may need to eliminate only a few incipient but 
significant threats in the course of a decade in order to transform 
transitory dominance into a durable, even impregnable monopoly.
    That is what happened here. Although Netscape Navigator had not 
developed into a competing applications platform when Microsoft cut 
off its revenue sources, Netscape contemplated just such a 
development--;and Microsoft both contemplated and deeply feared 
it. The outcome of the competition that Microsoft thwarted is 
unknowable. But there will be no further competition--;much less 
competitive outcomes--;if Microsoft is allowed to repeat the 
course of conduct it undertook here.
    But the RPFJ permits Microsoft to continue to fortify and expand 
its monopoly. Indeed, the RPFJ provides an imprimatur for Microsoft 
to continue and expand a whole range of additional, related 
anticompetitive practices. As a consequence, the RPFJ is an 
instrument of monopolization, not a remedy for it. The Court should 
not add judicial endorsement to DOJ's agreement to give up the case. 
The ``public interest,'' within the meaning of the Tunney 
Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(e), requires far more effective 
relief.
    I. THE TUNNEY ACT REQUIRES CLOSE SCRUTINY UNDER THE PRESENT 
CIRCUMSTANCES
    The Tunney Act exists ``to prevent `judicial rubber 
stamping''' of proposed antitrust consent decrees. United 
States v. Microsoft Corp., 56 F.3d 1448, 1458 (DC Cir. 1995) 
(quoting H.R. Rep. No. 1463, 93d Cong. 2d sess. 8, reprinted in 1974 
U.S.C.C.A.N. 6535, 6538) (``Microsoft/'); United States v. BNS, 
Inc., 858 F.2d 456, 459 (9th Cir. 1988); In re IBM, 687 F.2d 591,600 
(2d Cir. 1982). Upon enactment it was immediately clear that 
``Congress did not intend the court's'' review of a 
proposed settlement ``to be merely pro forma, or to be limited 
to what appears on the surface.'' United States v. Gillette 
Co., 406 F. Supp. 713,715 (D. Mass. 1975) (Aldrich, J.).
    The Tunney Act requires particularly close scrutiny of the RPFJ 
in this case. The government seeks to remedy a proven, well-defined, 
serious violation of the antitrust laws. Microsoft's heavy lobbying 
of the executive and legislative branches in order to bring 
political pressure for a lenient settlement heightens the need for 
scrutiny, and in addition makes necessary the Court's active 
investigation into Microsoft's failure to disclose the bulk of that 
lobbying despite the command of 15 U.S.C. 16(g). The lenient terms 
of the RPFJ itself further underscore the need for close judicial 
scrutiny. Never in the history of the Tunney Act has a Court been 
confronted with this combination of an impregnable judgment of 
liability, pervasive lobbying, and apparent surrender by the federal 
government. The circumstances here indicate exactly the sort of 
``failure of the government to discharge its 
duty''--;whether or not actually 
``corrupt''--;that even DOJ concedes warrants close 
judicial scrutiny of a settlement. CIS 66, 66 Fed. Reg. 59,476 
(quoting United States v. Mid-America Dairymen, Inc., 1997-;1 
Trade Cas. * 61,508, at 71,980, 1977 WL 4352 at * 8 (W.D. Mo. 
1977)).
    A. The Government's Victory On Liability Removes Litigation Risk 
And Therefore Limits Deference
    The CIS suggests (at 65-;68, 66 Fed. Reg. at 
59,475-;476) that the Court owes nearly absolute deference to 
DOJ's decision to retreat from its appellate victory. That is not 
true. The affirmance of liability on appeal removes any speculation 
that ``remedies which appear less than vigorous'' simply 
``reflect an underlying weakness in the government's 
case.'' Microsoft I, 56 F.3d at 1461. There is no 
``underlying weakness''; liability is a given, and 
provides a clear benchmark for measuring whether the proposed relief 
is sufficiently effective to come ``within the reaches of the 
public interest.'' Id. at 1460. Those ``reaches'' are 
narrower when liability is proved and affirmed than when it is 
merely alleged, as it was in Microsoft I.
    1. The Imposition And Affirmance Of Liability Remove Any 
Constitutional Concerns About Searching Review And Require The Court 
To Perform Its Constitutional Duty
    Most important, the current posture of this case places it 
beyond the scope of the prudential and constitutional concerns 
expressed by some courts (and dissenting Justices) about judicial 
scrutiny of DOJ's charging decisions, or of its settlement of 
unproven claims. It may be that when ``the government is 
challenged for not bringing as extensive an action as it might, a 
district judge must be careful not to exceed his or her 
constitutional role.'' Microsoft I, 56 F.3d at 1462. Such 
concerns did not persuade the majority of the Supreme Court, 
however, which over a dissent rejected similar arguments in 
summarily affirming the modifications imposed by the district court 
in the AT&T consent decree. See Maryland v. United States, 460 
U.S. 1001 (1983).
    In any event, when the action has been brought, tried, and won, 
and the only question is whether the proposed relief is adequate, 
the constitutional concerns dissipate. Because DOJ already made the 
discretionary decision to bring the case, and successfully proved 
liability to the satisfaction of two courts, the Court in reviewing 
this settlement runs no risk that by exercising its normal remedial 
discretion under established legal principles it somehow might be 
said ``to assume the role of Attorney General.'' Microsoft 
I, 56 F.3d at 1462. It was precisely the absence of a 
``judicial finding of illegality'' that might impede the 
Tunney Act from ``supply[ing] a judicially manageable standard 
for review.'' Id. at 1459. Here, two courts have provided the 
``findings that the defendant has actually engaged in illegal 
practices'' that were missing in both Microsoft I and AT&T 
(like other cases settled before trial). Id. at 1460-;1461 
(emphasis added). In addition, the appellate affirmance imposed 
monopolization liability for all of the significant conduct that had 
been alleged to support the additional, largely supererogatory legal 
theories that were rejected as ground for additional liability.
    It is accordingly entirely appropriate, and indeed necessary, 
for the Court in this case ``to measure the remedies in the 
decree as if they were fashioned after trial,'' Microsoft I, 56 
F.3d at 1461, because they were ``fashioned after trial'' 
and appellate affirmance. The Court need not ``assume that the 
allegations in the complaint have been formally made out'' 
(id.), but rather knows beyond doubt exactly which allegations were 
proved. There is a ``judicial finding of relevant markets, 
closed or otherwise, to be opened'' and ``of 
anticompetitive activity to be prevented.'' Maryland v. United 
States, 460 U.S. at 1004 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting). ``IT]hat 
there was an antitrust violation,'' and ``the scope and 
effects of the violation,'' were not assumed, as they must be 
in a pretrial settlement, but proved to the satisfaction of two 
courts. Id.
    Very limited prosecutorial discretion remains in this situation. 
The amorphous, policy-laden choices whether to bring a case and how 
much to allege, are behind us. The predictive judgment as to the 
chances of success on liability likewise is beyond serious dispute 
in light of the unanimous affirmance of monopolization liability by 
the en banc court of appeals. DOJ has some leeway in choosing a 
remedy, but its chosen remedy must be ``adequate to remedy the 
antitrust violations alleged in the complaint,'' United States 
v. Bechtel Corp., 648 F.2d 660, 665 (9th Cir. 1981), under the well-
established legal standards for antitrust relief. See Microsoft III, 
253 F.3d at 103. Those standards inform the ``public 
interest'' determination under the Tunney Act, and, by contrast 
with the ``public interest'' standing alone, are 
judicially manageable without a doubt.
    The DC Circuit has made crystal clear that a consent decree 
``even entered as a pretrial settlement, is a judicial 
act,'' so that ``the district judge is not obliged to 
accept one that, on its face and even after government explanation, 
appears to make a mockery of judicial power.'' Microsoft I, 56 
F.3d at 1462. Judicial approval of the settlement in this case is 
far more of a classic ``judicial act'' than the typical 
settlement without proof of liability. As in the context of post-
conviction criminal sentencing, the Court must act as more than a 
passive recipient of arrangements made between the parties
    There is no serious question that a federal court may reject a 
plea bargain in its sound discretion, Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, 
Santobello v. New York, 454 U.S. 257, 262 (1971), for reasons that 
may include the ``court's belief

[[Page 28365]]

that the defendant would receive too light a sentence under the 
circumstances.'' United States v. Adams, 634 F.2d 830, 835 (5th 
Cir. 1981).\3\ Granted, plea bargains in the criminal context 
generally involve admissions of liability. But the case here, if 
anything, is stronger here, where liability has been, not admitted, 
but established after extensive litigation and affirmed by an en 
banc court of appeals over the vigorous objection of the defendant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\See also, e.g., United States v. Robertson, 250 F.3d 
500, 509 (6th Cir. 2001); United States v. Greener, 979 F.2d 517, 
521 (7th Cir. 1992); United States v. McGovern, 822 F.2d 739, 742 
n.4 (8th Cir. 1987); United States v. Randahl, 712 F.2d 1274, 1275 
(8th Cir. 1983).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this stage, ``the discrepancy between the remedy and 
undisputed facts of antitrust violations'' can ``be such 
as to render the decree `a mockery of judicial 
power.''' Massachusetts School of Law, Inc. v. United 
States, 118 F.3d 776, 782 (DC Cir. 1997) (quoting Microsoft I, 56 
F.3d at 1462). By contrast with the concerns expressed in the 
pretrial settlement context about the intrusion of Tunney Act courts 
on functions that are constitutionally allocated to the executive 
branch, the situation after liability is established presents 
opposite concerns under our system of separated powers, and of 
checks and balances between the branches of government. 
Constitutional concerns in this case would arise only if the Court 
failed to apply the legal standards governing antitrust relief to 
the adjudicated liability here. DOJ asks the Court not only to 
abandon its traditional power over the relief to be imposed in an 
adjudicated case, but also to ignore the clear command of Congress 
to provide a check on the irresponsible exercise of power by a 
suddenly and inexplicably compliant prosecutor. The Court should 
refuse that suggestion.
    2. The Extensive Record And Judicial Opinions Provide Clear, 
Manageable Standards For Substantive Review Of The RPFJ
    None of the authorities on which DOJ relies involved a full 
trial in which liability was proved, much less one in which 
liability was affirmed on appeal. Indeed, the statements quoted in 
the CIS draw heavily on that fact--;that in each case there had 
been no finding of liability, and that review of the settlement at 
issue necessarily involved second-guessing DOJ's prosecutorial 
discretion in making two rather standardless assessments: (1) 
whether to bring a case at all, and thus place the matter in a 
judicial forum, see Microsoft I, 56 F.3d at 1459-;1460, and (2) 
the chances for success. See, e.g., Mid-America Dairymen, 1977 WL 
4352, at *8 (Tunney Act ``did not give this Court authority to 
substitute its judgment about the advisability of settlement by 
consent judgment in lieu of trial'') (emphasis added).
    Here, neither of these fundamentally discretionary prosecutorial 
judgments is at issue. The decision to bring the case was made years 
ago, and the case was litigated and won, establishing liability to a 
known extent.
    It is telling that in asking for broad deference DOJ places 
heavy reliance on language from the Ninth Circuit's decision in 
United States v. Bechtel Corp., 648 F.2d 660 (9th Cir. 1981). See 
CIS 66-;67 & n.4; 66 Fed. Reg. 59,476. One could hardly 
find a setting more distant from this one. Not only did Bechtel not 
involve a finding of liability after full litigation and affirmance 
on appeal; and not only did the setting there--;alleged 
complicity in the ``Arab boycott'' of Israel in the mid-
1970s--;implicate the foreign policy powers of the executive 
branch; but the issue before the curt in Bechtel was the defendant's 
effort to avoid its own settlement by arguing that the settlement to 
which it had agreed was ``not in the public interest.'' 
Bechtel, 648 F.2d at 665.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\4 Decided in an equally remote context was United 
States v. BNS, Inc., 858 F.2d 456 (9th Cir. 1988), in which the 
Ninth Circuit approved a preliminary injunction, entered over DOJ's 
objection, against a tender offer for an acquisition that a proposed 
consent decree would have permitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As it happens, however, the court of appeals in Bechtel 
enunciated the legal standard that should be applied here: 
``whether the relief provided for in the proposed judgment was 
adequate to remedy the antitrust violations alleged in the 
complaint.'' Bechtel, 648 F.2d at 665 (emphasis added). That is 
precisely the standard that DOJ wishes to avoid. Where liability is 
a given, as it is here, the Court must ensure that the 
``remedies negotiated between the parties and proposed by the 
Justice Department clearly and effectively address the 
anticompetitive harms'' that have been proved. United States v. 
Thomson Corp., 949 F. Supp. 907, 913 (D.DC 1996). When the 
``anticompetitive harms'' and their illegality have been 
proved, the fit between those harms and the proposed remedies must 
be closer than when those harms merely have been ``initially 
identified,'' id., as is usually the case in Tunney Act 
proceedings.
    Even if there were no finding a liability, the Court would not 
be compelled ``unquestionably [to] accept a consent decree as 
long as it somehow, and, however inadequately, deals with the 
antitrust problems implicated in the lawsuit.'' United States 
v. Alcan Aluminum, Ltd., 605 F. Supp. 619, 622 (W.D. Ky. 1985) 
(citing United States v. AT&T, 552 F. Supp. 131,151 (D.DC 1982), 
aff'd sub nom. Maryland v. United States, 460 U.S. 1001 (1983). With 
liability in place, however, the Court need not proceed ``on 
the assumption that the government would have won.'' Gillette, 
406 F. Supp. at 716 n.2.
    The government did win. The Court in this case need not 
``speculate in regard to the probability of what facts may or 
may not have been established at trial.'' United States v. Mid-
America Dairymen, Inc., 1977 WL 4352, at *1. Those facts are a 
matter of record.
    Whatever narrow deference may be afforded here amounts only to 
the tested rule that ``[i]t is not the court's duty to 
determine whether this is the best possible settlement that could 
have been obtained.'' Gillette, 406 F. Supp. at 716 (emphasis 
added). Although the Court may not be able to insist on the 
``best possible'' decree, the proof and affirmance of 
liability require the Court to ensure that the RPFJ is at least 
adequate on that record under well-established remedial principles. 
Bechtel, 648 F.2d at 665.
    The differences are real, but not dramatic, between the Court's 
role in deciding whether to accept this settlement in Track I, and 
in deciding in Track II what relief to impose at the request of 
those plaintiffs who have not abandoned the pursuit of a full and 
effective remedy in this case. In each track, the Court must measure 
proposed remedies against the legal standards set out by the DC 
Circuit and by the Supreme Court. In each track, the Court should 
not approve a remedy that is inadequate to meet those standards. In 
evaluating the RPFJ, the Court is not at liberty to substitute its 
view of equally effective, or marginally more effective relief, if 
the terms of the RPFJ are fully adequate to the task as the law 
defines it. That is, the DOJ's choices among adequate alternatives 
warrant deference, but its determination of what is adequate 
warrants none. In the other track, the Court does have the liberty, 
not merely to go beyond any decree that might be entered in this 
track, but also to insist that the final decree address the 
competitive issues in a way that satisfies the Court's view as to 
the best and most effective means of opening the operating systems 
market to competition, depriving Microsoft of the fruits of its 
illegal conduct, and preventing similar monopolistic abuses in the 
future. That is, while in this track of the proceeding the Court 
cannot insist on the ``best possible settlement,'' 
Gillette, 406 F. Supp. at 716, so long as the proposed relief meets 
the remedial standards anchored in antitrust law, in Track II the 
Court has not only the power but the duty to impose the ``best 
possible'' decree.
    B. Broad Deference Is Particularly Circumstances Are Suspicious
    1. Inappropriate Because The Microsoft's Manifestly Inadequate 
Disclosure Under The Tunney Act's Sunshine Provisions Weighs 
Strongly Against Judicial Deference To The Terms Of The RPFJ Section 
2(g) of the Tunney Act requires Microsoft to file a ``true and 
complete description'' of ``any and all written or oral 
communications'' by it or on its behalf ``with any officer 
or employee of the United States concerning or relevant to'' 
the proposed settlement. 15 U.S.C. 16(g) (emphasis 
added). The only exception from this requirement is for settlement 
negotiations between ``counsel of record alone'' and 
``employees of the Department of Justice alone.''/d. 
(emphasis added).
    When Senator Tunney first introduced his bill, he focused on the 
significance of the disclosure provision. ``Sunlight is the 
best of disinfectants,'' he explained (quoting Justice 
Brandeis), and thus ``sunlight * * * is required in the case of 
lobbying activities attempting to influence the enforcement of the 
antitrust laws.'' 119 Cong. Rec. 3449, 3453 (1973). Minor 
amendments to Section 2(g) were designed ``to insure that no 
loopholes exist in the obligation to disclose all lobbying contacts 
made by defendants in antitrust cases culminating in a proposal for 
a consent decree.'' H.R. Rep. No. 1463, at 12 (emphasis added).
    The breadth of Microsoft's effort to use political pressure to 
curtail this case has no parallel in the history of the antitrust 
laws.

[[Page 28366]]

The ITT episode that prompted the Tunney Act pales in comparison. It 
has been widely known that since 1998 Microsoft has comprehensively 
lobbied both the legislative and executive branches of the federal 
government in an effort to create political pressure to end this 
case.\5\ But Microsoft did not disclose any of these contacts, much 
less all of them, as the Tunney Act requires.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\See generally Declaration of Edward Roeder (attached). 
See also, e.g., Ian Hopper, Microsoft Lobbied Congress Over Case, 
SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS, Jan. 11, 2002, at C3; Heather Fleming 
Phillips, Washington Politicians Chime In On Microsoft, SAN JOSE 
MERCURY NEWS, June 30, 2001, at A1; Rajiv Chandrasekaran & John 
Mintz, Microsoft's Window of Influence,'' Intensive Lobbying 
Aims to Neutralize Antitrust Efforts, WASH. POST, May 7, 1999, at A 
1; James Grimaldi & Jay Greene, Microsoft Hard At Work Outside 
Courtroom, SEATTLE TIMES, Feb. 17, 1999, at A1. See also Microsoft's 
Political Donation In Question; South Carolina GOP Says Decision To 
Quit Lawsuit Coincidental, CHI. TRIB., Dec. 25, 1998, at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rather, Microsoft disclosed only meetings that occurred during 
the last round of settlement negotiations ordered by the Court. 
Microsoft's insupportable interpretation of its statutory disclosure 
duty effectively nullifies the sunshine provisions of the Act, which 
are crucial to the Act's protection of the public interest.
    a. Contacts With All Branches Must Be Disclosed.
    All contacts with ``any officer or employee of the United 
States'' must be disclosed. As Senator Tunney explained,
    Included under [section 16(g)] are contacts on behalf of a 
defendant by any of its officers, directors, employees, or agents or 
any other person acting on behalf of the defendant, with any Federal 
official or employee. Thus, * * * the provision would include 
contacts with Members of Congress or staff, Cabinet officials, staff 
members of executive departments and White House staff 119 Cong. 
Rec. at 3453 (emphasis added). In other words, the disclosure 
applies equally to contact with any branch of Government, including 
the Congress. * * * [T]here is a great deal to be gained by having a 
corporate official who seeks to influence a pending antitrust case 
through congressional pressure, know that this activity is subject 
to public view.
    Id. Indeed, it is firmly established in other areas of the law 
that ``officer'' of the United States includes Members of 
Congress and their employees.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ee, e.g., Williams v. Brooks, 945 F.2d 1322, 1325 n.2 
(5th Cir. 1991) (``a congressman is an ``officer of the 
United States'' within the meaning of [28 U.S.C. 
1442(a)(1)]''); Nebraska v. Finch, 339 F. Supp. 528, 531 (D. 
Neb. 1972) (``It is * * * clear that a representative to the 
Congress of the United States is an officer of the United States, 
not an officer of the district in which he was elected.''); 
United States v. Meyers, 75 F. Supp. 486, 487 (D.DC 1948) 
(``Obviously, a Senator of the United States is an officer of 
the United States.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    But Microsoft did not disclose its extensive and heavily 
reported lobbying of Congress. Indeed, upon the remand to the 
District Court, Microsoft's lobbying of Congress produced a letter 
signed by more than 100 Members urging a swift settlement. But 
Microsoft did not disclose even that lobbying, aimed at pressuring a 
swift capitulation by the government despite its victory on appeal, 
directly before the last round of settlement negotiations.
    b. The ``Counsel of Record'' Exception Is Very Narrow.
    Section 16(g) provides a narrow exception from disclosure for 
contacts between ``counsel of record alone'' (emphasis 
added)--;that is, without any other corporate officers or 
employees also involved--;and ``the Attorney General or the 
employees of the Department of Justice alone.'' As Senator 
Tunney explained, this ``limited exception'' for attorneys 
of record ``is designed to avoid interference with legitimate 
settlement negotiations between attorneys representing a defendant 
and Justice Department attorneys handling the litigation. * * * 
[T]he provision is not intended as loophole for extensive lobbying 
activities by a horde of `counsel of record.'' 119 Cong. 
Rec. at 3453. The House Report further clarifies that this 
``limited exception'' distinguishes 
```lawyering'' contacts of defendants from their 
`lobbying contacts'.'' H.R. REP. No. 1463, supra, 
at 9.
    Microsoft did not disclose the well-publicized participation in 
the last round of settlement negotiations of its lobbyist-lawyer, 
Charles F. ``Rick'' Rule. It appears that the critical 
``negotiations'' leading to the RPFJ took place, not in 
the offices of Microsoft's counsel of record, but ``in 
Justice's offices and those of Microsoft legal consultant Rick 
Rule.'' Paul Davidson, Some States Fear Microsoft Deal Has Big 
Loopholes, USA TODAY, Nov. 5, 2001. Rule has been a registered 
lobbyist for Microsoft for some years, but was not named as counsel 
of record until November 15, 2001, after the settlement negotiations 
were complete. See Notice of Appearance (D.DC filed Nov. 15, 2001). 
That designation--;long after the settlement deal had been 
struck cannot retroactively shield his extensive prior contacts with 
Mr. James or other executive or legislative officials from 
disclosure. Contacts by ``[a]ttorneys not counsel of 
record'' must be disclosed. Id. Of course, Microsoft's many 
other lobbyists do not conceivably come within this exception. But 
Microsoft concealed all of those lobbying contacts.
    c. All Communications Urging The Government To Abandon Or Settle 
The Case Were ``Relevant To'' The Proposed Settlement
    Section 16(g) requires the disclosure of all contacts 
``concerning or relevant to'' a proposed settlement. This 
statutory definition is intentionally broad. Microsoft's disclosure 
interprets the word ``concerning'' very narrowly, so that 
the provision covers only actual settlement discussions--;and 
only the last round of them. In Microsoft's view, the Tunney Act 
would require disclosure only of the very meetings that must precede 
any settlement. Microsoft reads the words ``relevant to'' 
right out of the statute. That this statutory provision is broad is 
obvious by its very terms; in order for the phrase ``relevant 
to'' not to be mere surplusage, it must encompass contacts less 
directly focused on the settlement than those that 
``concern[]'' that agreement.
    Senator Tunney an example: ``the provision would require 
disclosure * * * of a meeting between a corporate official and a 
Cabinet officer discussing `antitrust policy'' during the 
pendency of antitrust litigation against that corporation.'' 
119 Cong. Rec. at 3453. The Act borrows from evidentiary concepts, 
including the privilege for settlement discussions, which prompted 
the narrow exception for counsel of record. The evidentiary concept 
of relevance is very broad. See Fed. R. Evid. 401. ``Relevance 
of evidence is established by any showing, however slight, that the 
evidence'' makes a legally important factor ``more or less 
likely.'' United States v. Mora, 81 F.3d 781,783 (8th Cir. 
1996) (emphasis added) (citation omitted). Plainly 
``relevant'' to the question whether a defendant's 
lobbying activities influenced the existence and terms of a consent 
decree are contacts with the administration, and with members of 
Congress, that touch on the desirability of the government's 
agreeing to end the case. It is startling, for example, that 
Microsoft would omit reference to its efforts to enlist support for 
congressional proposals that would have cut DOJ's funding for the 
pursuit of this case, and for antitrust enforcement in high 
technology industries in general.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\See Chandrasekaran & Mintz, supra, WASH. POST, May 
7, 1999, at A 1; Grimaldi & Greene, supra, SEATTLE TIMES, Feb. 
17, 1999, at A1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Disclosure under Section 2(g) is not usually burdensome; most 
defendants do not try to win their case politically rather than in 
the courtroom. Microsoft's massive and unprecedented effort to 
distort the judicial process through political pressure makes its 
compliance burdensome, but all the more necessary. It is exactly 
this sort of manipulation that the Tunney Act was designed to 
discourage by bringing it to light.
    d. Microsoft's Flouting Of Its Statutory Duty Counsels 
Painstaking Judicial Scrutiny Of The RPFJ
    Microsoft's cunning ``interpretation'' of the 
statutory disclosure requirements--;so that disclosures reach 
only the very settlement discussions that the Tunney Act was not 
concerned about--;sheds considerable light on Microsoft's likely 
``interpretations'' of any remedy imposed on it, 
especially one like the RPFJ of which it can claim to be an equal 
drafter, if not the principal author. Microsoft's disclosure is so 
inadequate as to raise questions about Microsoft's good faith. The 
filing includes no disclosure of any lobbying contacts between 
Microsoft and the administration; it includes no disclosure of any 
contacts between Microsoft and members of Congress; it includes no 
disclosure of any contacts whatsoever before September 27, 2001, 
although it is well known that Microsoft and the government have 
tried to settle the government's antitrust action since before it 
was filed, and that Microsoft lobbied Congress to bring pressure on 
DOJ to settle or simply abandon the case.
    Microsoft should face contempt sanctions for its certification 
``that the requirements of [Section 16(g)] have been complied 
with and that such filing is a true and complete description of such 
communications known to the defendant or which the defendant 
reasonably should have known.'' DOJ should refuse to acquiesce 
in Microsoft's deception. Although DOJ cannot be expected to be

[[Page 28367]]

aware of all of Microsoft's lobbying of Congress in an effort to 
create pressure for a favorable settlement, DOJ should reveal the 
end-product of that pressure in the form of communications from 
Members and their staffs. And there is no excuse for DOJ to be 
complicit with Microsoft when it comes to contacts with DOJ itself. 
In particular, DOJ certainly is aware of Mr. Rule's lobbying 
contacts with before he belatedly appeared as counsel after the 
settlement had been concluded. The proper resolution of this issue 
is the appointment of a special master with the ability to examine 
the relevant participants under oath. In view of its responsibility 
to enforce 15 U.S.C. 16(g) along with the rest of the 
antitrust laws, DOJ should request (and support) the implementation 
of such a procedure by the Court.
    2. The RPFJ Represents A Swift And Significant Retreat By DOJ
    Another factor counseling against deference here is the DOJ's 
striking capitulation to Microsoft's view of an appropriate remedy, 
despite the unanimous affirmance of the core of DOJ's case. The 
insubstantial provisions of the RPFJ provide ample ``reason to 
infer a sell-out by the Department,'' Massachusetts School of 
Law, 118 F.3d at 784.
    After prevailing on liability in the district court, DOJ sought 
and obtained not only structural relief--;as is 
``common'' in broad monopolization cases, see Microsoft 
III, 253 F.3d at 105--;but also ``interim'' conduct 
restrictions that clearly could not stand alone as a monopolization 
remedy. DOJ earlier recognized that the interim conduct remedies 
were stopgaps to keep the competitive situation from continuing to 
decline in the year or so before divestiture jumpstarted 
competition. See Plaintiffs'' Memorandum in Support of Proposed 
Final Judgment 30-;31 (corrected version) (filed May 2, 2000). 
On remand, DOJ abandoned the structural relief that it formerly 
found necessary, even though liability on the monopolization 
claim--;which alone could support structural relief in the first 
place--;was affirmed with minor modifications. DOJ stated that 
it would pursue relief ``modeled upon'' the interim 
``conduct-related provisions,'' along ``with such 
additional provisions as Plaintiffs may conclude are necessary to 
ensure that the relief is effective, given their decision not to 
seek a structural reorganization of the company.'' Joint Status 
Report 2 (filed Sept. 20, 2001).
    Instead of fortifying the proposed decree to compensate for the 
abandonment of structural relief, however, DOJ moved considerably 
backward from the interim remedies, narrowing Microsoft's duties and 
providing broad exceptions. Indeed, the RPFJ is weaker than the 
final proposal in the settlement negotiations that took place during 
Spring 2000, before any judgment of antitrust liability, much less 
appellate affirmance.\8\ Then, there was litigation risk as to 
liability. Now there is none. Nonetheless, the definitions and 
obligations in the current RPFJ fall short of those in the pre-
judgment offer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\8 That final proposal, known as Draft 18, was formerly 
posted on a now-defunct website, www.contentville.com, in connection 
with a review of a book that detailed the progress of this case. The 
text of Draft 18 may now be viewed at www.ccianet.org/legal/ms/draft 
18.php3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ``[T]he government's virtual abandonment of the relief 
originally requested'' is ``a sufficient showing that the 
public interest was not * * * adequately represented'' in the 
RPFJ. United States v. Associated Milk Producers, Inc., 534 F.2d 
113, 117 (8th Cir. 1976). It is precisely when DOJ appears to have 
``abruptly ``knuckled under,'' id. at 118, as here, 
that judicial scrutiny under the Tunney Act should be most 
substantive and searching.
    3. The CIS Overstates The Terms Of The RPFJ, Reflecting The 
Indefensibility of the RPFJ Itself
    The CIS underscores the need for close scrutiny of the actual 
terms of the RPFJ and their effectiveness. The CIS seeks to convey 
an image of stringency by adding terms to provisions of the RPFJ 
that are absent from the RPFJ itself. But it is the RPFJ, not the 
CIS, that defines the enforceable bargain between the parties. As 
the Supreme Court has recognized, ``any command of a consent 
decree * * * must be found within its four comers, and not by 
reference to any purposes of the parties.'' United States v. 
ITT Continental Baking Co., 420 U.S. 223,233 (1975) (citations and 
internal quotation marks omitted). While the CIS may be useful in 
interpreting ambiguous terms in the REFJ, the wording of the CIS is 
not independently enforceable. Only the RPFJ would be entered as a 
judgment, and ``[t]he government cannot unilaterally change the 
meaning of a judgment.'' Bechtel, 648 F.2d at 665. It would be 
different, of course, if the CIS or its relevant refinements were 
``expressly incorporated in the decree.'' ITT Continental, 
420 U.S. at 238. In particular, the CIS goes beyond the text of the 
RPFJ to paint a far stricter picture of Microsoft's disclosure 
obligations than the RPFJ supports. It is no wonder that DOJ seeks 
to defend a document--;the CIS--;to which Microsoft would 
not be bound, rather than the far weaker RPFJ that alone would be 
judicially enforceable. The CIS cannot transform the RPFJ into a 
better deal for competition and consumers than it is.
    II. THE RPFJ MUST MEET THE LEGAL STANDARDS NORMALLY APPLICABLE 
TO ANTITRUST REMEDIES
    The ``public interest'' standard in the Tunney Act is 
not without content. Rather, those ``words take meaning from 
the purposes of the regulatory legislation,'' NAACP v. Federal 
Power Comm'n, 425 U.S. 662, 669 (1976). The well-developed 
jurisprudence of antitrust remedies provides sound guidance for the 
public interest determination.
    Although a district court should not ``engage in an 
unrestricted evaluation of what relief would best serve the 
public,'' Microsoft I, 56 F.3d at 1458 (quoting Bechtel, 648 
F.2d at 666) (emphasis added), principled restrictions for that 
evaluation in this case arise from the extensive, unvacated Findings 
of Fact, the comprehensive opinion affirming monopolization 
liability on appeal, and the long-standing remedial principles of 
antitrust law, principles that the DC Circuit instructed the 
District Court to apply to any proposed relief on remand. See 
Microsoft III, 253 F.3d at 103. The ``appropriate'' 
inquiry (Bechtel, 648 F.2d at 666) is ``whether the relief 
provided for in the proposed judgment [i]s adequate to remedy the 
antitrust violations'' that were proved at trial and affirmed 
on appeal. Id. at 665.
    The DC Circuit provided benchmarks rooted in Supreme Court 
jurisprudence to guide the evaluation whether a remedy is 
``adequate.'' A remedy in this case must serve ``the 
objectives that the Supreme Court deems relevant,'' Microsoft 
III, 253 F.3d at 103. That is, a remedy must ``seek to * * * 
[1] `terminate the illegal monopoly, [2] deny to the defendant 
the fruits of its statutory violation, and [3] ensure that there 
remain no practices likely to result in monopolization in the 
future.''' Id. at 103 (quoting Ford, 405 U.S. at 577, and 
United Shoe, 391 U.S. at 250).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\9 It is telling that the CIS ignores the remedial 
standard that the DC Circuit set out. See CIS 24, 66 Fed. Reg. 
59,465. The CIS submerges the need to craft relief that tends to 
``terminate'' the illegally maintained monopoly, despite 
the court of appeals'' contrary instructions. See 253 F.3d at 
103. Rather, the CIS endorses a watered-down standard in order to 
set a lower bar for the RPFJ to clear, in tacit recognition that the 
RPFJ cannot satisfy the DC Circuit's standard. The CIS would require 
relief only to ``[e]nd the unlawful conduct,'' to prevent 
recurrence of the violation ``and others like it,'' and to 
``undo its anticompetitive effects.'' CIS 24, 66 Fed. Reg. 
59,465. The RPFJ falls short even of these modified, more modest 
objectives, however, particularly when measured by its failure to 
prevent future violations that work slight variations on the conduct 
condemned by two courts, and its failure to ``undo'' any 
of the ``anticompetitive effects'' of Microsoft's 
sweeping, coordinated, and successful anticompetitive campaign.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A. The Relief Should ``Terminate The Illegal 
Monopoly''
    In a monopolization case, the problem to be remedied is the 
monopoly itself. Because the RPFJ would leave the illegally 
maintained monopoly in place without making the market structure 
more competitive, to satisfy this criterion relief must exclude the 
possibility that Microsoft again will prolong its monopoly power by 
abusing it. At a minimum, however, a monopolist should emerge from a 
remedy facing competitive threats of similar scope and significance 
to those it illegally stamped out. The DC 35
    Circuit recognized that the illegal conduct in this case was 
aimed at increasing and hardening the applications barrier to entry 
that insulates Microsoft's OS monopoly. See id. at 55-;56, 79. 
The CIS similarly recognized that ``[c]ompetition was injured 
in this case principally because Microsoft's illegal conduct 
maintained the applications barrier to entry * * * by thwarting the 
success of middleware.'' CIS 24, 66 Fed. Reg. 59,465. A remedy 
that does not literally terminate the monopoly accordingly must 
undermine the applications barrier to entry that was strengthened by 
the illegal conduct.
    B. The Relief Should Prevent ``Practices Likely To Result 
In Monopolization In The Future''
    To satisfy this criterion, any remedy must both (1) prevent the 
monopolist from

[[Page 28368]]

engaging in the same sorts of conduct that underlie the current 
finding of liability, and (2) prevent other types of conduct that 
could preserve the monopoly. The ``monopolization in the 
future'' that must be prevented includes both the simple 
maintenance of the current monopoly and the expansion of that 
monopoly's scope. Relief should make it impossible for the 
monopolist to continue its pattern of using current market power to 
foreclose imminent or contemplated competitive threats. Because 
Microsoft has been ``caught violating the [Sherman] Act,'' 
it ``must expect some fencing in.'' Otter Tail Power Co. 
v. United States, 410 U.S. 366, 381 (1973).
    A monopolist that has been litigating for years no doubt has 
developed anticompetitive techniques that achieve the same goals 
through slightly different means. Microsoft embarrassed DOJ by 
obtaining language in the 1995 consent decree that was tailored to 
exclude, at least arguably, the company's next planned 
anticompetitive initiative. Exemptions, provisos, and narrow 
definitions should be scrutinized on the assumption that Microsoft 
again has tried to ensure that the RPFJ will not impede currently 
planned anticompetitive acts.
    C. The Relief Should ``Deny To The Defendant The Fruits Of 
Its Statutory Violation''
    Relief in an antitrust case not only must prevent 
``recurrence of the violation,'' but also must 
``eliminate its consequences.'' National Society of 
Professional Engineers v. United States, 435 U.S. 679, 697 (1978). 
Thus, a remedy should prevent a monopolist from retaining the 
accrued competitive benefits of its illegal conduct. These 
advantages may permit a monopolist to maintain its monopoly without 
additional antitrust violations. Relief that allows a wrongdoer the 
full benefit of its illegal activity fails the most basic test of 
any remedy under any branch of the law.
    In this case, the ``fruits'' of Microsoft's illegal 
conduct may be the most important target of a responsible remedy. 
One of the chief advantages that Microsoft gained by incorporating 
the Internet browser into the Windows monopoly was the ability to 
control not only the browser for its own sake, suppressing the 
possibility that the Internet browser would provide a source of 
alternate, OS-neutral APIs, but also the browser as the gateway to 
all Internet computing. As the Litan/Noll/Nordhaus Comment explains 
(at 58-;60), one of the most important fruits of monopolistic 
conduct is the suppressed development of competitive threats. That 
is why a forward-looking remedy must be rooted in current market 
conditions, and must seek to restore competition to where it likely 
would have been in the absence of the anticompetitive conduct. 
Litan/Noll/Nordhaus Comment 35-;36, 40-;42, 58-;59.
    D. Broader Principles Applicable To Injunctive Relief Also 
Should Inform The Analysis Of The RPFJ
    The remedial analysis here resembles other remedial 
undertakings. Although civil antitrust relief is not punitive, 
effective antitrust relief shares with criminal sentencing the broad 
goals of incapacitation and deterrence. As much as possible, an 
illegal monopolist should be flatly prevented from engaging in the 
same or similar suppression of competition in the future. In 
addition, the remedy should be enforceable with sufficient speed and 
certainty to make stiff contempt sanctions likely if the monopolist 
nonetheless manages to engage in anticompetitive conduct again.
    The point of antitrust relief after a finding of liability is to 
learn from history, not to permit the offender to repeat it. This 
consideration is particularly acute here, where the purposes of the 
expiring 1995 consent decree clearly have not been realized, but 
rather have been evaded or neutralized.
    Because antitrust relief necessarily is forward-looking, a 
remedy's effectiveness should be judged with respect to where the 
market is going, not where it has been. Microsoft has directed its 
efforts to destroy the competitive threat of Internet computing. The 
more functionality that is performed on the Web, the less 
significant the operating system on a particular client device 
connected to the Web. Thus, Internet computing represents the 
maturation of the competitive threat posed by the Internet browser 
and squelched by Microsoft's illegal conduct. The current industry-
wide focus on Web-based services reflects the realization that a 
competitive market still survives in this sector. The Court will 
have to consider whether the RPFJ in fact is ``all about the 
past, not the future battle in Internet services[, and] doesn't 
touch the company's ability to use Windows XP to extend its monopoly 
to these new areas.'' Walter Mossberg, For Microsoft, 2001 Was 
A Good Year, WALL ST. J., Dec. 27, 2001, at B1. See Stiglitz/Furman 
Dec. 38-;39.
    III. THE RPFJ FALLS FAR SHORT OF PROVIDING A REMEDY FOR PROVEN 
OFFENSES UPHELD ON APPEAL
    The RPFJ lights upon narrowly defined practices and prohibits 
narrowly defined versions of them, in ways that might have 
mitigated, but would not have ended, the very conduct at issue in 
this case. The RPFJ does not measure up to the sweeping 
monopolization violations found by two courts. The RPFJ's provisions 
do not address Microsoft's ability and incentives to strengthen the 
applications barrier to entry, which was the underlying issue at the 
core of the case, instead focusing on techniques of monopolization 
that have been defined so narrowly that Microsoft's actual behavior 
need not change. And when addressing a precise technique that 
directly implicated the reinforcement of the applications barrier to 
entry--;Microsoft's ability to stop porting its Office 
productivity suite to the Apple Macintosh platform--;the RPFJ 
permits Microsoft to retain the ability to repeat that threat in 
slightly altered contexts.
    A. DOJ's Effort To Minimize The Scope Of The DC Circuit's 
Affirmance Cannot Obscure The Failure Of The RPFJ To Remediate 
Clear, Proven Violations
    DOJ has tried to lower the bar for approval of its proposal by 
minimizing the most significant appellate imposition of 
monopolization liability in the past half-century, and adopting 
Microsoft's crabbed view of its own liability. In Senate testimony, 
Assistant Attorney General James made the remarkable assertion that 
the DC Circuit, despite affirming ``the District Court's 
holding that Microsoft violated  2 of the Sherman Act in a 
variety of ways,'' 253 F.3d at 59, somehow precluded any 
consideration, for remedial purposes of Microsoft's astonishing 
anticompetitive campaign as a whole. See James Testimony 5. To the 
contrary, the court of appeals never rejected the common-sense 
notion that ``Microsoft's specific practices could be viewed as 
parts of a broader, more general monopolistic scheme''; much 
less did the court of appeals insist (or even hint) that 
``Microsoft's practices must be viewed individually'' for 
all purposes. Id. Rather, the court of appeals clearly considered 
some illegal acts in the context of others. Thus, the court held 
that Microsoft's exclusive contracts with ISVs, though affecting 
only ``a relatively small channel for browser 
distribution,'' had ``greater significance because * * * 
Microsoft had largely foreclosed the two primary channels to its 
rivals.'' 253 F.3d at 72.
    The DC Circuit's examination of the divestiture remedy is 
telling. If the many separately illegal monopolistic acts could not 
be viewed as cumulatively contributing to the illegal maintenance of 
Microsoft's monopoly, divestiture would have been an unthinkable 
remedy, since no specific act held illegal on appeal changed the 
structure of the company or of the market. But the court of appeals 
recognized that divestiture could be justified if the many separate 
illegal acts, taken together, were shown to have had a sufficiently 
certain causal connection to justify using structural relief to 
undermine, if not end, the monopoly. See 253 F.3d at 80, 
106-;107.
    The court of appeals did ``reverse [the] conclusion that 
Microsoft's course of conduct separately violates 2 of the Sherman 
Act.'' 253 F.3d at 78 (emphasis added). But the reversal 
occurred because the district court purported to find that a series 
of acts that did not constitute separate, free-standing antitrust 
violations had a ``cumulative effect * * * significant enough 
to form an independent basis for liability''--;but never 
specified acts other than those that separately violated Section 2 
that might be aggregated into such a violation. Id.
    It is a remarkable leap from this unremarkable holding to the 
absurd notion that Microsoft's extraordinary series of separate 
adjudicated antitrust violations cannot be considered together for 
any purpose. Even the CIS recognizes that those violations are part 
of one coordinated and ``extensive pattern of conduct designed 
to eliminate the threat posed by middleware.'' CIS 11, 66 Fed. 
Reg. 59,462. They should be remedied as such.
    B. The RPFJ Simply Restates The Antitrust Laws At Critical 
Points And Thus Forfeits The Clarity And Efficiency Of The Contempt 
Process
    Another striking feature of the RPFJ is its repeated reliance on 
a reasonableness standard of conduct that simply imports full rule-
of-reason analysis under the antitrust laws. Antitrust remedies, 
like other injunctive decrees, are supposed to be amenable to swift 
and sure enforcement,

[[Page 28369]]

according to standards that give warning of what is forbidden and 
what is permitted both to the wrongdoer and to its potential 
victims. But the RPFJ would regularly require the decree Court to 
determine whether Microsoft's conduct was ``reasonable.'' 
For example, the Court would have to determine
    *whether volume discounts were ``reasonable'' 
or exclusionary (RPFJ III(B)(2));
    *whether technical requirements for the bootup sequence 
that Microsoft imposed on OEMs were ``reasonable'' (id. 
III(C)(5));
    *whether the terms on which Microsoft makes 
Communications Protocols available are ``reasonable'' (id. 
III(E));
    *whether exclusivity requirements imposed on ISVs were 
``reasonable'' in ``scope and duration'' (id. 
III(F)(2)); see also id. (III(G)(2));
    *whether technical requirements designed to force the 
invocation of Microsoft Middleware despite contrary consumer or OEM 
preferences are ``reasonable'' (id. 
III(H)(2)[second]);
    *whether the licensing terms accompanying required 
disclosures, and terms of mandatory cross-licenses required for 
access to the disclosures, are ``reasonable'' (id. ???* 
and whether Microsoft's bases for excluding ISVs from access to 
security-related protocols are ``reasonable'' (id. 
III(J)(2)(b)-;(c)).
    It is telling that the RPFJ states so many of its provisions in 
terms that simply duplicate the antitrust rule of reason. Rule of 
reason disputes are notoriously difficult to litigate, see Arizona 
v. Maricopa County Medical Soc., 457 U.S. 332, 343 (1982) (noting 
``extensive and complex litigation'' involving 
``elaborate inquiry'' at ``significant costs''), 
--; and difficult for plaintiffs to win. These provisions add 
nothing to the antitrust laws themselves, either in clarity of 
obligation or in efficiency of enforcement. That is no remedy at 
all.
    C. The RPFJ Provides No Remedy For Microsoft's Suppression Of 
The Browser And Java.
    As noted above, perhaps the most glaring deficiency of the RPFJ 
is that it does nothing to restore the competitive threats to 
Windows posed by the Internet browser and cross-platform Java. That 
cannot be an oversight. The bulk of the evidence, and much of the 
opinion of the court of appeals affirming liability, focused on 
Microsoft's successful efforts to suppress these threats to the 
applications barrier to entry. See Microsoft III, 253 F.3d at 
58-;78. Even the CIS recognizes the primacy of these products 
in the case. See CIS 10-;17, 66 Fed. Reg. 59,462-;463.
    Yet the RPFJ does not change the competitive picture for either 
product in the least. The RPFJ does not deprive Microsoft of these 
``fruits'' of its illegal conduct, but instead takes that 
illegal conduct, and the advantages derived from it, as a tacit 
baseline for future competition. The RPFJ leaves Microsoft with the 
full benefit not only of the years of insulation from the 
competitive threats posed by those products, but also of the 
expanded power it has accumulated by incorporating Internet Explorer 
into the Windows monopoly. Microsoft thus has more, and stronger, 
weapons to suppress any middleware threats that it identifies in the 
future, since its monopoly control over the browser--;now 
labeled part of the Windows monopoly product--;provides 
Microsoft with complete control over the universal client for 
Internet computing. The RPFJ's approach is like sentencing a bank 
robber to probation, but letting him keep his weapons and the loot.
    But the RPFJ's failure to provide relief that restores the 
specific competitive threats that Microsoft illegally suppressed is 
worse than that. In a platform technology market like that for PC 
operating systems, single standards tend to prevail, so that only 
sweeping changes can dislodge the incumbent. Platform threats are 
very rare. It could easily be another five or ten years or more 
before a comparable threat arises again; certainly no threat of 
similar strength to the Internet browser or Java has surfaced in the 
nearly seven years since Microsoft began the course of illegal 
conduct condemned by the court of appeals. See Stiglitz/Furman Dec. 
35-;36. That is what makes anticompetitive conduct directed at 
them so potentially profitable. The RPFJ makes that conduct 
profitable beyond any rational actor's wildest dreams, and greatly 
increases the incentives for its repetition. Having been caught 
illegally suppressing two related platform threats, Microsoft 
retains all the benefits that it sought through its illegal acts.
    By eliminating Navigator, Microsoft has not only eliminated 
consumer choice in browsers, but it also seized the power to control 
the interfaces and protocols through which an enormously valuable 
set of Internet applications--;ranging from instant messaging 
and e-mail to streaming video and e-commerce--;are delivered to 
desktop computers and other digital devices. Microsoft's Internet 
Explorer is now the bottleneck through which all Internet-related 
middleware must pass. Instant messaging and media player technology 
are equally dependent on browser software. Microsoft has also seized 
the power to decide whether that browser functionality will be 
ported to any competing operating system, and, if so, to which ones. 
Finally, in destroying Navigator, Microsoft has also destroyed an 
important alternative distribution channel, one free of Microsoft's 
control or influence, through which Microsoft's competitors could 
formerly distribute middleware runtimes and products to desktop 
consumers and application developers.
    Although Navigator has practically disappeared from the 
competitive scene, Java has not. But Java's importance has been 
limited to servers, where Microsoft has a leading share but not yet 
an operating systems monopoly. Microsoft's conduct appears to have 
assured that Java will not function as cross-platform middleware for 
client computers. Java thus poses no threat to the desktop OS 
monopoly. But the RPFJ lets Microsoft keep that anticompetitive 
benefit of its conduct.
    IV. THE ICON-FOCUSED OEM FLEXIBILITY PROVISIONS ARE INEFFECTIVE
    RPFJ III(H)(1)-;(2)[first] superficially 
allow OEMs and end users to rearrange icons and menu entries 
relating to middleware.\10\ These provisions are hollow, however. 
Section III(H)(1) duplicates only what Microsoft unilaterally agreed 
to permit OEMs to do back on July 11, 2001. And the end-user 
provisions simply restate and preserve end-users'' longstanding 
options to delete icons and menu entries if they right-click and 
delete or drag the icon or menu entry to the Recycle bin. The 
default provisions in Section III(H)(2) are so limited, and so fully 
subject to Microsoft's architectural control, as to be competitively 
meaningless as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\10 See n.2, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The icon provisions do not adequately address the competitive 
harms of Microsoft's adjudicated misconduct because Microsoft 
remains able to ensure that the Microsoft versions of middleware 
will appear, ready to be invoked by applications, on every PC. Even 
if the icon provisions had greater competitive significance in 
theory, they are unlikely to have any significance in fact, because 
few if any OEMs are likely to take advantage of the options 
provided. DOJ cannot claim to be unaware of this market reality. 
These provisions are mere window-dressing. See Stiglitz/Furman Dec. 
35.
    A. The PFJ Permits Microsoft's To Continue Illegally Commingling 
Middleware Code With The Code For The Monopoly Operating System
    The RPFJ capitulates on DOJ's most hard-fought and significant 
substantive victory: the finding that Microsoft illegally preserved 
its monopoly by commingling the middleware code with the operating 
system, foreclosing the competitive threat to Windows while 
effectively expanding the scope of the monopoly to encompass 
middleware. DOJ's inability to enforce the 1995 consent decree 
against the binding of IE to Windows, see United States v. 
Microsoft, 147 F.3d 935 (DC Cir. 1998) (``Microsoft II''), 
was widely viewed as prompting this action. The conduct itself was 
viewed as the most successful in furthering Microsoft's 
anticompetitive goals.
    Rather than repeat and strengthen the prohibition in the 1995 
decree that failed to achieve its goals, the RPFJ does not even 
impose the type of superficial prohibition applied to other conduct 
condemned at trial and on appeal. To the contrary, under the RPFJ, 
the operating system is whatever Microsoft says it is, and Microsoft 
can commingle any new product to the monopoly 
product--;foreclosing competition for the OS and the new product 
alike. See Stiglitz/Furman Dec. 34-;37. Not only does Microsoft 
preserve its anticompetitive gains, but it obtains a green light to 
repeat the same conduct to destroy any new middleware threats. In a 
market characterized by serial dominance, an incumbent monopolist 
may need only to suppress one threat every few years in order to 
make its monopoly virtually permanent. Cf. id. at 35-;36. A 
continued ability to commingle middleware gives Microsoft limitless 
tenure over the OS market. If Microsoft emerges from this case free 
to bind middleware to the OS, this action will be an exercise in 
futility.
    1. The DC Circuit Specifically Condemned Commingling Twice

[[Page 28370]]

    DOJ's victory on the commingling point was crystal clear, and 
repeatedly underscored by the court of appeals. The court of appeals 
recognized that ``Microsoft's executives believed'' that 
``contractual restrictions placed on OEMs would not be 
sufficient in themselves'' and therefore ``set out to 
bind'' IE ``more tightly to Windows 95 as a technical 
matter.'' Microsoft III, 253 F.3d at 64 (quoting Findings, 84 
F. Supp.2d at 50 ( 160)). In the CIS (and in Assistant 
Attorney General James'' Senate testimony), DOJ appears to 
assume that icon-based relief that subjects some Microsoft 
Middleware Products to the Add/Remove utility equates with relief 
for commingling code. Thus, the CIS blends the two offenses in 
stating that Microsoft violated Section 2 when it ``integrated 
Internet Explorer into Windows in a non-removable way while 
excluding rivals.'' CIS 7, 66 Fed. Reg. 59,461. In affirming 
liability for both courses of conduct, however, the court of appeals 
clearly distinguished between Microsoft's ``excluding IE from 
the `Add/Remove Programs'' utility'' and its 
``commingling code related to browsing and other code in the 
same files.'' 253 F.3d at 64-;65, 67. The court of appeals 
found no justification for commingling code or, indeed, more 
broadly, for ``integrating the browser and the operating 
system.'' Id. at 66. One could hardly ask for a clearer 
statement.
    Microsoft argued bitterly against liability for commingling, and 
for a declaration that its product design decisions were beyond the 
reach of the antitrust laws. Instead, the DC Circuit pointedly 
rejected Microsoft's argument that it ``should vacate 
Finding of Fact 159 as it relates to the commingling of code.'' 
Microsoft III, 253 F.3d at 66; see Findings, 84 F. Supp.2d at 
49-;50 ( 159). And the court of appeals 
``conclude[d] that such commingling has an anticompetitive 
effect,'' because it ``deters OEMs from pre-installing 
rival browsers, 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.'' 253 F.3d at 66 (emphasis added). See generally id. at 
64-;67. That is, commingling helps reinforce the applications 
barrier to entry that shields the Windows monopoly.
    The DC Circuit's holding reflected a principle of critical 
importance to the enforcement of the antitrust laws in the software 
industry, where the complementarity of different programs makes 
product design a potentially devastating weapon to foreclose 
competition: a ``monopolist's product design decisions'' 
can violate the antitrust laws just as any other economic conduct 
can. 253 F.3d at 65. Product design decisions may be grossly 
anticompetitive, particularly in the software industry where lines 
of code can be packaged (and marketed) in many different ways 
without affecting the operation of programs once they are installed. 
As Microsoft's James Allchin recently acknowledged, software 
``code is malleable,'' so that ``[y]ou can make it do 
anything you want.'' Microsoft Net Profit Fell 13% in Recent 
Quarter, Wall St. J. Europe, Jan. 18, 2002, 2002 WL-;WSJE 
3352885 (quoting Allchin).
    Lest there be any doubt on the matter, the court of appeals 
flatly rejected Microsoft's reheating petition aimed squarely at the 
remedial issue. Microsoft specifically sought to preclude relief 
that addressed the commingling violation, and instead to treat the 
commingling and the lack of add/remove functionality as the same. 
Microsoft's reheating petition made clear that the ``ruling 
with regard to `commingling'' of software code is 
important because it might be read to suggest that OEMs should be 
given the option of removing the software code in Windows 98 (if 
any) that is specific to Web browsing [as opposed to] removing end-
user access to Internet Explorer.'' Appellant's Petition 
for Reheating, at 1-;2 (July 18, 2001). Microsoft argued that 
affirmance only on the ground of the add/remove issue would ensure 
that the remedy was tightly confined, because the ``problem 
will be fully addressed by including Internet Explorer in the Add/
Remove Programs utility, which Microsoft has already announced it 
will do in response to the Court's decision.'' Id. at 2.
    The court of appeals rejected this argument out of hand, adding 
this remarkable sentence in a terse per curiam order denying 
reheating: ``Nothing in the Court's opinion is intended to 
preclude the District Court's consideration of remedy issues.'' 
Order at 1 (DC Cir. Aug. 2, 2001) (per curiam). Nonetheless, the 
RPFJ would settle this case as if rehearing had been granted, 
requiring Microsoft only to allow OEMs and end users to ``add/
remove'' the icons for middleware. This is insufficient to 
remedy technological binding--;commingling [] since it does 
nothing to remove the underlying middleware code on which developers 
will continue to rely. If only the Internet Explorer icon is removed 
from the desktop, the IE middleware remains, and with it the same 
applications barrier issues that Microsoft preserved by stifling 
competition by Netscape and Java.
    It is true that the interim conduct relief in the vacated Final 
Judgment required only that Microsoft offer an operating system 
where OEMs and end-users were permitted to remove end-user access to 
the middleware components, United States v. Microsoft Corp., 97 F. 
Supp.2d 59, 68 (D.DC 2000), vacated, 253 F.3d 34 (DC Cir. 2001), a 
provision similar to that in RPFJ III(H)(1)[first]. 
That transitional provision of course assumed the existence of 
structural relief that would remove Microsoft's economic incentive 
to bind middleware to the OS unless the binding was independently 
justifiable. Without a structurally more competitive market, those 
modest provisions would be meaningless, and would permit Microsoft 
to follow much the same course that triggered the lawsuit.
    There is no excuse for DOJ's failure to do anything about one of 
the principal, and most easily replicable, violations in the case. 
Even one of Microsoft's vocal, libertarian defenders, University of 
Chicago law professor Richard Epstein, recognized that the minimum 
plausible remedy after the DC Circuit decision would involve 
``undoing a few product-design decisions.'' Richard 
Epstein, Phew/, Wall. St. J., June 29, 2001, at A10. But DOJ did not 
even insist on that. Instead, the RPFJ's omission of any relief for 
this violation gives Microsoft something the DC Circuit twice 
refused: a victory on the hardest-fought legal issue in the case. 
Given the central importance of middleware to the theory of the 
case, failing to address the principal means by which Microsoft 
bundled browser middleware to Windows would be plainly inadequate.
    2. The Failure To Limit Commingling Is Critical Because Ubiquity 
Trumps Technology In Platform Software Markets
    The failure to prohibit commingling of middleware deprives the 
RPFJ of any significant procompetitive effect on the emergence and 
adoption of competing platform software. The critical competitive 
phenomenon in this case was not middleware in itself, but rather the 
potential, and deeply feared, development of particular middleware 
into a competing platform for software applications. Middleware can 
develop into a competing applications platform by attracting 
software developers to use its Application Programming Interfaces 
(APIs) in preference to, or at least in addition, to the APIs 
offered by Microsoft in Windows. Developers will write their 
applications to invoke particular APIs--;i.e., to run on a 
particular platform--;based on how widely available the APIs 
will be.
    Although potential platform software not distributed by 
Microsoft must attract users in order to achieve the widespread 
availability of their APIs that will attract developers, it is the 
expected presence of the APIs that matters, not how much consumers 
directly use the application exposing the APIs. Non-Microsoft 
middleware depends on the availability of the application in order 
to gain the critical mass of users that, in turn, may attract 
developers.
    The availability and prominence of the application's icon may be 
significant for the purpose of attracting end-users. In platform 
competition, however, the availability of the application is only a 
means to the desired end. Developers don't write to icons; they 
write to APIs. The inclusion of Microsoft Middleware functionality 
in every copy of Windows is determinative, regardless of how or 
whether the icons are featured, and regardless even of the presence 
of the user interface or shell?\11\ If developers know that 
the plumbing for a Microsoft version of middleware will be on every 
PC because it is commingled with Windows, then developers will write 
to the Microsoft version's APIs. Because the RPFJ permits Microsoft 
to include the APIs accompanying the software functionality that 
mimics middleware that is a potential platform threat, Microsoft 
will be able to defeat any middleware threat in exactly the same way 
it destroyed the threat of Netscape and Java on the PC desktop. See 
Stiglitz/Furman Dec. 36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\The user interface is especially insignificant 
because the browser window already can serve as the user interface 
for many products, and could easily be adapted to serve as the user 
interface for many more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the RPFJ, developers will continue to assume that Windows 
Media Player, for example, is present on every computer. This will 
be true regardless of whether ``end user access'' is 
removed, because the remedy does

[[Page 28371]]

not require Microsoft to remove the middleware. The result is that 
software developers will write applications to, for example, the 
Windows Media Player APIs, rather than to the APIs supplied by rival 
platforms. That is an advantage that no competitor can overcome.
    It is no answer to say that OEMs can offer rival middleware even 
if the code for a Microsoft version of the same product is 
commingled with Windows, so that the Microsoft version of middleware 
appears on every desktop PC. If Microsoft's version of a product is 
everywhere, few OEMs will go to the effort of providing another 
product that does largely the same thing. The district court and 
court of appeals alike recognized that OEMs faced strong 
disincentives to install two competing products with similar 
middleware functionality, disincentives arising largely from support 
costs and disk space. See 84 F.Supp.2d at 49-;50, 60-;61 
( 159, 210); 253 F.3d at 61. If the Microsoft Middleware 
is there, the OEM will have to support it, even if--;perhaps 
especially if--;the end-user does not know that it is there.
    Thus, rival middleware cannot undermine Microsoft's monopoly 
unless (1) the rival middleware is ubiquitous, or (2) the Microsoft 
version is not ubiquitous. If developers do not feel compelled to 
write to the rival middleware as well as the Microsoft middleware, 
the rival middleware will not undermine the monopoly. And if 
Microsoft's version of particular middleware can be ubiquitous by 
virtue of its inclusion in the monopoly operating system, as the 
RPFJ plainly allows, there is virtually no likelihood that rival 
middleware will ever achieve the ubiquity needed to present a 
platform challenge. See Stiglitz/Furman Dec. 36-;37; see 
generally Litan/Noll/Nordhaus Comment 44-;47.
    3. The RPFJ Retreats From The 1995 Consent Decree
    Microsoft uses Windows as an instant, universal distribution 
channel for Microsoft software that represents a response to a 
threat to the dominance of Windows as a program development 
platform. As a consequence, ``Windows'' has become 
whatever bundle Microsoft needs it to be to forestall competition. 
The 1995 Consent Decree contained a prohibition on contractual tying 
of applications to the operating system in order to prevent 
anticipated conduct that would maintain the operating systems 
monopoly by anticompetitive means. That the earlier provision failed 
in its purpose suggests that the provision should be broader, not 
that it should be abandoned, particularly since this case began as a 
way to stop conduct that had escaped summary condemnation under the 
earlier decree. It would be senseless as a matter of enforcement 
policy to bring and win an action prompted by an evasion (if not a 
violation) of a monopolization consent decree, win the case on the 
monopolization theory most closely related to the object of the 
earlier consent decree, and then reward the violator by removing the 
relevant restriction upon the expiration of the earlier decree 
rather than broadening it as proposed here.
    Microsoft's monopoly gives it the power to make all systems 
integration and software bundle decisions, a power that Microsoft is 
exercising more broadly, as the breadth of the Windows XP bundles 
clearly illustrates. The RPFJ should not step back from the 1995 
Consent Decree.
    4. The RPFJ Encourages Illegal Commingling By Placing The 
Critical Definition of Windows Under Microsoft's Exclusive Control
    But the RPFJ does step back from the 1995 Decree, and makes 
matters still worse. Not only does the RPFJ completely fail to 
prevent future illegal commingling, but it effectively approves that 
conduct by permitting Microsoft ``in its sole discretion'' 
to ``determine[]'' exactly which ``software code 
comprises [sic] a Windows Operating System Product.'' RPFJ 
VI(U). That provision permits Microsoft an unearned 
advantage in repelling any future challenges to illegal commingling 
of applications code with Windows. Were the Court to enter this 
provision as part of its judgment, Microsoft could point to DOJ's 
capitulation on this issue--;and the Court's approval--;as 
extraordinarily persuasive evidence that its monopoly product was as 
broad as it says it is, and that, despite the contrary holding of 
the DC Circuit, any commingling of an application with the operating 
system is per se legal.
    The Court can and should disapprove provisions that appear to 
endorse practices of apparent anticompetitive effect and dubious 
legality. Thomson Corp., 949 F. Supp. at 927-;930 (refusing to 
approve fee schedule for mandatory license for legally dubious 
copyright). The Court should not approve this provision, which 
defangs many of the other obligations in the RPFJ.
    Rather than learning from the difficulties with the 
``integration proviso'' in that Decree, DOJ has ceded the 
issue to Microsoft, permitting Microsoft to decide for purposes of 
the decree obligations where the OS stops and where middleware 
begins. Much of the RPFJ rests on the relationship between the 
Windows OS and middleware. But the RPFJ places Microsoft firmly in 
control of every technical aspect of the proposed decree by 
permitting Microsoft absolute control over the definition of 
``Windows Operating System Product.'' That subjects many 
of Microsoft's purported obligations to Microsoft's own discretion.
    No term is more important in the RPFJ than ``Windows 
Operating System Product,'' which appears fully 46 times in the 
RPFJ: 26 times in the descriptions of substantive obligations, and 
20 times in the definitions that circumscribe those obligations. The 
definition of Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) is the 
starkest example. ``Windows Operating System Product'' 
appears three times among the 41 words of the API definition. See 
RPFJ VI(A.). Thus, Microsoft can determine ``in 
its sole discretion'' what an API is, and thus what must be 
disclosed.
    One would think that DOJ would do everything possible to ensure 
that a new decree did not contain an analogue to the 
``integration proviso'' that nullified much of the anti-
tying provision of the 1995 decree. See generally Microsoft II, 147 
F.3d 935. Instead, Section VI(U) ensures that few, if any, of the 
technical provisions of the RPFJ will mean anything except what 
Microsoft wants them to mean, and that none can be enforced without 
lengthy litigation that will further shrink the tightly limited 
duration of the proposed relief.
    B. Empirical Evidence Shows That The Icon Flexibility Provisions 
Will Not Be Used
    Not only do the icon flexibility provisions address the wrong 
problem, but the market already has tested their consequences. On 
July 11, 2001, Microsoft announced that OEMs and end users would be 
permitted to remove access to Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser, 
just as RPFJ III(H)(1) permits. As of this writing, not 
one OEM has availed itself of this new liberalized policy. Windows 
XP is shipping with Internet Explorer on every single personal 
computer shipped by every single OEM. This real-world experience 
speaks volumes about the practical significance of this relief.
    C. The Icon Flexibility Provisions Require--;And 
Accomplish--;Little
    1. The icon flexibility provisions do not permit OEMs to swap 
out Microsoft Middleware Products and replace them with other 
products. Rather, the OEMs at most can hide the Microsoft icon, but 
need to be prepared to support the underlying Microsoft software 
when another software application invokes it. That means that these 
provisions do not address the added ``product testing and 
support costs'' that discourage OEMs from including more than 
one version of particular functionality. Microsoft III, 253 F.3d at 
66.
    This is a step backward from DOJ's settlement posture before 
liability was established. At that time, DOJ insisted that OEMs be 
allowed to alter or modify Windows, and that Microsoft provide OS 
development tools for that purpose. See Draft 18, 
4(1)(d), 4(g). The RPFJ provisions, by contrast, 
only permit OEMs to display icons, shortcuts, and menu entries for 
Non-Microsoft Middleware. The RPFJ does not require Microsoft to 
permit OEMs to remove any Microsoft Middleware Products, although 
even current Microsoft practice permits this. The RPFJ requires 
Microsoft only to allow the removal of ``icons, shortcuts, or 
menu entries.'' RPFJ III(H)(1)[first].
    2. Section III(H)(2)[first] seems to permit OEMs and end-users 
to choose default middleware for particular functions. Microsoft's 
obligations are far less than they appear.
    The provision applies only where a Microsoft Middleware Product 
would launch into a top-level display window (rather than operating 
within another interface) and would either display ``a// of the 
user interface elements'' or the ``Trademark of the 
Microsoft Middleware Product.'' RPFJ 
III(H)(2)(i)-;(ii) (emphasis added). Thus, the 
provision does not apply if Microsoft designs the slightest 
variation on the interface elements that launch from within another 
application, so long as the trademark also is not displayed in the 
top-level window. These do not present serious programming 
challenges. Microsoft's ability to preclude OEM installation of 
desktop shortcuts that ``impair the functionality of the 
[Windows]

[[Page 28372]]

user interface'' (RPFJ III(C)(2)) provides 
another, largely unreviewable set of opportunities to impede the use 
of innovative shortcuts to innovative software. Microsoft asserted 
similar reasons to defend some of the conduct condemned by the DC 
Circuit. See Microsoft III, 253 F.3d at 63-;64. The DC Circuit 
rejected Microsoft's approach, but the RPFJ adopts it.
    3. As explained above, the code beneath the surface is 
critically important to the success of middleware in undermining the 
applications barrier to entry in the OS market. The RPFJ contains 
exceptions that ensure that, however icons may be displayed on the 
surface, Microsoft Middleware will be firmly (and unchallengeably) 
established in the plumbing of each PC.
    Sections III(H)(1)-;(2)[second], undo what might be left of 
the obligations earlier in Section III(H). Section III(H)(1)[second] 
permits Microsoft to ensure that Microsoft Middleware Products are 
invoked whenever an end-user is prompted to use Microsoft Passport 
or the group of Microsoft web services now known as Hailstorm. 
Section III(H)(2)[second] ensures that Microsoft need only program 
in functions that invoke Active X or other similar Microsoft-
proprietary implementations of common functions, in order to ensure 
that Microsoft Middleware Products constantly appear regardless of 
an end-user's stated preferences. And none of the provisions in 
Section III(H) would apply unless the corresponding Microsoft 
Middleware Products existed seven months before the last beta 
version of a new Windows release. As with other provisions, 
Microsoft would be constrained by these requirements only if it paid 
no attention to them when it decided when and how to release its 
products.
    D. The 14-Day Sweep Provision Effectively Nullifies RPFJ 
III(H)
    Even if these provisions otherwise might mean something, the 
RPFJ ensures that they will be competitively meaningless by 
permitting Microsoft to nag users to give permission for Microsoft 
to override any array of non-Microsoft icons and menu entries 14 
days after the initial boot-up of a PC. See RPFJ 
III(H)(3). Thus, Microsoft only needs to prompt users 
with a dialog box inviting them to ``optimize the Windows user 
interface'' every time they boot up, or when they download the 
inevitable bug fixes and security patches among Windows updates, in 
order to undo any OEM's or end-user's customization of icons. 
Microsoft apparently provided DOJ with the name for this feature, 
which DOJ uses in the CIS: ``Clean Desktop Wizard.'' CIS 
48, 66 Fed. Reg. 59,471. What user would not agree to have a cleaner 
desktop? No ISV is likely to pay an OEM a fee sufficient to cover 
the trouble of rearranging icons, and supporting additional 
software, for the privilege of having non-Microsoft software icons 
displayed advantageously for as little as two weeks.
    The CIS suggests that the ability of Microsoft to sweep away 
icons of competing middleware and other products 14 days after a 
computer first boots up (RPFJ III(H)(3)) applies only 
to ``unused icons'' (CIS 48, 66 Fed. Reg. 59,471), but the 
decree terms contain no such limitation. Once its ``Clean 
Desktop Wizard'' (id.) secures a click of user consent, 
Microsoft can hide any icons that offend it. Indeed, there is 
nothing in the RPFJ that would stop Microsoft from including similar 
``wizards'' that would prompt users to reset middleware 
defaults, or even to remove Non-Microsoft Middleware,'' in 
order to ``optimize performance'' or to ``take full 
advantage of powerful new Windows features.''
    E. By Placing The Burden To Restore Competition On OEMs, The PFJ 
Leads To No Remedy At All For Much Of The Misconduct At Issue
    One of the most misguided elements of the RPFJ is its allocation 
to OEMs, ISVs and end-users of the primary responsibility for 
injecting competition into the OS market. The icon and default 
flexibility provisions of the RPFJ allocate to the OEMs almost all 
of the financial risk and responsibility for remediating Microsoft's 
antitrust violation, while the monopolist has no obligations except 
to allow others to make changes to hide (or add to) Microsoft's 
middleware. That approach ignores the fact that OEMs are motivated 
by their own fiduciary and economic considerations, not by the drive 
to remedy a monopolization offense. OEMs are risk-averse, as they 
operate in a low-margin, highly competitive environment in what has 
become a commodity-product market. In that environment OEMs are 
highly dependent on the good graces of Microsoft, not only for 
favorable pricing on Microsoft's monopoly software products [] 
Office as well as Windows [] but also for timely technical 
assistance, and access to technical information.
    The Stiglitz/Furman Declaration confirms (at 32-;34) that 
the economics of the OEM industry--;a commodity industry captive 
to a bottleneck monopolist--;discourage expenditures of this 
kind. It is bizarre and counterproductive to place the burden to 
restore competition on the innocent, low-margin OEMs rather than the 
monopolist. The ``hapless makers of PCs'' still 
``aren't in any position to defy Microsoft,'' Walter 
Mossberg, For Microsoft, 2001 Was A Good Year, But At 
Consumers'' Expense, Wall. St. J., Dec. 27, 2001, at B1, any 
more than they were when the illegal conduct in this case first 
occurred. See, e.g., Findings, 84 F. Supp.2d at 62 (14) 
(Hewlett-Packard observation to Microsoft that ``[I]f we had a 
choice of another supplier, * * * I assure you [that you] would not 
be our supplier of choice''). But if OEMs choose not to 
exercise their new ``flexibility'' under the middleware 
provision %62 a choice that seems likely in view of the demonstrated 
lack of a response to Microsoft's offer of July 11, 2001 [5 the 
government is left with no antitrust remedy for much of its 
case.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\Similarly, the RPFJ places no limits on Microsoft's 
conduct toward one of its largest current groups of 
licensees--;direct corporate licensors of bulk Windows licenses. 
The corporate market has always been Microsoft's point of leverage, 
and those buyers now often buy direct. Microsoft has made clear its 
intention to make Windows and other software a renewable 
``service.'' Microsoft can undo all of the provisions 
applying to OEMs upon the first license renewal with an end-user.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nor can ISVs be expected to pay OEMs to take advantage of the 
limited flexibility provided by RPFJ III(C) and 
III(H). The RPFJ gives ISVs very slight incentives to subsidize OEM 
alterations of Microsoft's preferred desktop display, since the ISVs 
who sell middleware that competes against a Microsoft offering 
cannot buy exclusivity on the desktop of any computer. Rather, at 
best an ISV can obtain parity in the availability to developers of 
its middleware's code. No matter what ISVs and OEMs do, Microsoft 
Middleware will be ubiquitous. And ISVs could buy only 14 days of 
advantageous icon display before a Microsoft ``Clean Desktop 
Wizard'' (CIS 48, 66 Fed. Reg. 59,471) would begin prompting 
users to undo the OEM's arrangement of icons and reinstate the 
arrangement favored by Microsoft. No ISV would pay more than a 
pittance for such a shallow and short-lived advantage on the 
desktop.
    F. The RPFJ Permits Microsoft To Control Consumers'' Access 
To Innovation To Suit Its Monopolistic Aims
    The RPFJ allows Microsoft to exercise full control over the pace 
of innovation in middleware because Microsoft can ensure that 
consumers are denied access--;or have only severely impeded 
access--;to competitively threatening middleware products to 
which Microsoft has no analogue. Section III(C)(3) allows Microsoft 
to prohibit OEMs from configuring PCs to launch non-Microsoft 
middleware from any point unless Microsoft already has a competing 
product that launches from that point. Microsoft can prohibit OEMs 
from configuring non-Microsoft middleware from launching 
automatically at the end of the boot sequence or upon the opening or 
closing of an Internet connection unless a Microsoft Middleware 
Product with similar functionality would launch automatically. RPFJ 
III(C)(3).
    Even after this catch-up provision serves its delaying purpose, 
Microsoft can control how competing middleware products reach and 
serve consumers, so that products launch only in the way that best 
suits Microsoft. This provision appears designed to protect 
Microsoft from competition, and to give the monopolist a clear 
imprimatur to control the pace of innovation. See Stiglitz/Furman 
Dec. 28.
    V. THE API AND COMMUNICATIONS PROTOCOL DISCLOSURE PROVISIONS ARE 
INEFFECTIVE
    A. The API Provisions Require Little, If Anything, Beyond 
Current Disclosure Practices In Microsoft's Self-Interest
    The API and Communications Protocol disclosure provisions 
(III(D)-;(E)) contain little in the way of 
hard, fast, enforceable obligations, and do not appear to add 
anything significant to Microsoft's current disclosure practices. As 
the CIS recognizes: Through its MSDN [Microsoft Developer's Network] 
service, Microsoft presently makes widely available on the Internet 
an extensive and detailed catalog of technical information that 
includes, among other things, information about most Windows APIs 
for use by developers to create various Windows applications. MSDN 
access is presently broadly available to developers and other 
interested third parties.
    CIS 34, 66 Fed. Reg. 59,468.
    Microsoft already discloses literally thousands of APIs to 
software developers

[[Page 28373]]

through MSDN for the good reason that it is in Microsoft's self-
interest to promote the Microsoft Windows platform to software 
developers. The extent of information disclosure required by the 
RPFJ must be understood in the context of Microsoft's current 
information disclosure practices. A ``requirement'' that 
Microsoft disclose APIs for the most part simply 
``requires'' that Microsoft do what it does voluntarily.
    Microsoft has a business incentive not only to disseminate 
Windows APIs but to assist ISVs in understanding and implementing 
Windows APIs in their products. Microsoft and other platform 
software vendors compete to attract developers by disclosing 
technical information, creating easy-to-use development tools, and 
``evangelizing'' their development platforms. Attracting 
developers helps Microsoft perpetuate the substantial network 
effects that produce the applications barrier to entry protecting 
the Windows monopoly. Because the strength of the Windows monopoly 
and the power of the applications barrier to entry are directly 
related to the number of developers writing applications for 
Windows, it is in Microsoft's interest to provide a robust 
information disclosure program.
    By widely disclosing APIs, Microsoft ensures that applications 
will continue to be written for its platform software rather than 
for rival platforms. Properly understood, Section III(D) does not 
actually require Microsoft to provide any new disclosure of APIs and 
technical information to promote interoperability; Microsoft already 
engages in these disclosures. Rather, the incremental effect of the 
API disclosure provisions of the RPFJ is at most to prevent 
Microsoft from selectively withholding certain APIs from certain 
vendors. As explained below, however, the disclosure 
``requirements'' in the RPFJ are too insubstantial and too 
easily manipulated to accomplish even that limited goal.
    B. The RPFJ Does Not Require Disclosure of Windows APIs, But 
Rather Lets Microsoft Determine The Scope of Disclosure Through The 
Design and Labeling of Its Operating System And Middleware
    To begin with, the API disclosure requirements aim at the wrong 
thing. The RPFJ defines APIs as the interfaces used by Microsoft 
Middleware to invoke resources from a Windows Operating System 
Product. RPFJ VI(A). But innovative rival software 
vendors do not need APIs between Microsoft Middleware and Windows. 
The really threatening innovators are threatening precisely because 
their products perform functions that Microsoft's do not. In those 
cases, by definition, there will not be any fully analogous 
Microsoft middleware--;just as Microsoft did not have an 
Internet browser when Netscape Navigator first appeared. Those 
developers need full access to Windows APIs--;APIs for all 
functionalities enabled by the Windows platform, whether Microsoft 
calls them ``internal'' calls within Windows or external 
APIs that may be distributed to ISVs--;not to the limited subset 
used by a Microsoft version of similar middleware.
    That is what Netscape needed in 1995; there was no Internet 
Explorer to speak of at that time, and certainly Microsoft's 
rudimentary browser did not perform anywhere near the range of 
functions performed by Netscape Navigator. See Findings, 84 F. 
Supp.2d at 31-;32 (82-;84), 33-;34 
(91-;92). The RPFJ provisions would not have 
helped Netscape then. See Letter from James L. Barksdale, former CEO 
of Netscape, to Chmn. Leahy & Sen. Hatch, Senate Comm. on the 
Judiciary, Attachment, Question 1 (Dec. 11, 2001). 13 And they will 
not help any software developer whose products exceed the 
functionality of existing Microsoft middleware. The API disclosure 
provisions in the RPFJ thus ensure that Microsoft can control the 
pace of middleware innovation, providing another level of assurance 
that non-Microsoft products will not gain the type of head start 
that might result in ubiquity before a similar Microsoft product can 
be included
    Mr. Barksdale's letter in lieu of hearing testimony is available 
at http://java.sun.com/features/2002.01.barksdale-letter.html, and 
the attachment is available at http://java.sun.com/features/
2002.01.barksdale-attach.htm in the bundle of products sold with 
every Windows operating system.
    That limitation on API disclosure is severe enough. But it is 
just a beginning. The disclosure obligation is further limited by 
the definition of APIs at RPFJ VI(A): 
``Application Programming Interfaces (APIs)'' means the 
interfaces, including any associated callback interfaces, that 
Microsoft Middleware running on a Windows Operating System Product 
uses to call upon that Windows Operating System Product in order to 
obtain any services from that Windows Operating System Product.
    Setting aside the circularity, the malleability of the two 
principal defined terms renders this definition (and the 
corresponding obligations) a practical nullity. The API definition 
depends on the relationship between two ``products,'' each 
of which is defined solely by Microsoft. As noted above, Microsoft 
has ``sole discretion'' to identify software code as part 
of a ``Windows Operating System Product.'' RPFJ 
VI(U). Many APIs can disappear from view simply as a 
result of Microsoft's unreviewable decision to relabel certain 
interfaces as internal to Windows. If Microsoft says that an 
operation takes place entirely within Windows, rather than requiring 
the interaction of a middleware and Windows, then there is no API to 
disclose.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\Moreover, the term ``interfaces'' is not 
defined in the RPFJ. The CIS explains that 
```[i]nterfaces'' includes, broadly, any interface, 
protocol or other method of information exchange between Microsoft 
Middleware and a Windows Operating System Product.'' CIS 
33-;34, 66 Fed. Reg. 59,468. But that definition would not be 
part of the judgment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    C. The Definition of ``Microsoft Middleware'' Gives 
Microsoft Further Leeway to Limit Its Disclosure Obligation
    The only APIs that need be disclosed are those used by 
``Microsoft Middleware.'' But ``Microsoft 
Middleware,'' too, is defined in a way that gives Microsoft 
fight control over the scope of its own obligations. Remarkably, 
Assistant Attorney General James testified that this definition 
would have been difficult for DOJ to achieve in a litigated 
proceeding. Statement of Charles James to Senate Judiciary Committee 
8 (Dec. 12, 2001). But it is difficult to imagine what Microsoft 
would have contested. Just as in the dispute whether Internet 
Explorer is part of Windows, Microsoft can simply relabel software 
as part of one product rather than another. The label does not 
affect the commands and operations in the software.
    1. The RPFJ Requires Microsoft To Disclose Only The APIs Used By 
The ``User Interface'' Or Shell Of Microsoft Middleware
    The APIs that must be disclosed are those that ``Microsoft 
Middleware * * * uses to call upon [a] Windows Operating System 
Product.'' RPFJ VI(A); see id. 
III(D). But Microsoft determines how much code 
performing a Microsoft Middleware function is part of the 
Middleware, and how much is part of the Windows Operating System 
Product, since the latter definition is within Microsoft's 
``sole discretion.'' Id. VI(U). The only code 
in Microsoft Middleware that Microsoft must consider separate for 
the purposes of API disclosure is the user interface, or shell, of 
the Middleware--;or, rather, ``most'' of the shell. 
Id. VI(J)(4). The only limit is that ``Microsoft 
Middleware'' must ``[i]nclude at least the software code 
that controls most or all of the user interface elements of that 
Microsoft Middleware.'' Id. Thus, the terms of the RPFJ permit 
Microsoft to provide only the APIs that go between 51% of the user 
interface elements of Microsoft Middleware and the rest of the 
Windows bundle of products. None of the APIs used by the 
Middleware's functionality--;the APIs that permit the Middleware 
perform its functions while running on Windows--;need be 
disclosed, so long as the shell APIs are disclosed. This definition 
appears to be designed to have nothing to do with developer 
preferences, or with the applications barrier to entry.
    2. The RPFJ Requires Microsoft To Disclose APIs Only For 
``Microsoft Middleware'' That Is Distributed Separately 
From Windows, Yet Is Distributed To Update Windows
    To come within the disclosure obligation, Microsoft Middleware 
must be ``distributed separately from a Windows Operating 
System Product.'' That restriction alone is enough to take 
Windows Media Player 8 outside the definition, as that product is 
available only as part of the Windows XP bundle. But not all 
separate distributions prompt the API obligations; Microsoft must 
characterize the distribution as one that ``update[s] th[e] 
Windows Operating System Product.'' See RPFJ 
VI(J)(1). Thus, the scope of the obligation depends 
entirely on the labeling of the product, which Microsoft can easily 
manipulate.
    3. The Limitation Of Microsoft Middleware To 
``Trademarked'' Products Further Eviscerates The API 
Disclosure Provision
    But that is not all. At least equally significant is the 
restriction of the Microsoft Middleware definition, and thus the API 
disclosure obligation, to Middleware that is 
``Trademarked.'' RPFJ VI(J)(2). The 
definition of ``Trademarked'' allows Microsoft to exclude 
current middleware from the API disclosure obligation, and to 
prevent future middleware from becoming subject to the API 
disclosure obligation,

[[Page 28374]]

simply by manipulating its use of trademarks.
    a. Microsoft Easily Can Ensure That Middleware Is Not 
``Trademarked'' By Using A Generic Or Descriptive Name 
Combined With Microsoft(r) or Windows(r)
    The definition of ``Trademarked'' does not include 
``[a]ny product distributed under * * * a name compris[ing] the 
Microsoft(r) or Windows(r) trademarks together with descriptive or 
generic terms.'' Id. VI(T). That is how Microsoft 
has chosen to name some of its newest and most important products: 
the combination of a monopoly brand with a simple descriptive mark 
that helps identify an entire software function with the Microsoft 
implementation of it. Windows(r) Messenger instant messaging 
software is one example.
    Moreover, by the terms of the RPFJ Microsoft disclaims any 
rights in the use of such combinations of the Microsoft(r) or 
Windows(r) marks with generic or descriptive terms, and abandons any 
rights that may be acquired in the future. RPFJ VI(T). 
These provisions suggest that Microsoft can change the scope of the 
definition of Middleware, and thus of the API disclosure obligation, 
by abandoning some marks it has registered as combinations of 
Microsoft(r) or Windows(r) with generic or descriptive 
terms--;if the RPFJ does not accomplish that in itself. Windows 
Media Player is an example. Although Microsoft has registered the 
combination of Windows(r) and the generic term ``Media'' 
as Windows Media(r), at bottom the name Windows Media Player is a 
combination of the Windows(r) mark with the generic term 
``media player.''
    Indeed, Microsoft could plausibly argue that the Windows 
Media(r) mark does not come within the ``Trademarked'' 
definition as it is, since even that mark consists of no more than 
the Windows(r) mark in combination with the generic term 
``media.'' 15 RPFJ VI(T) may therefore embody 
Microsoft's ``disclaim[er of] any trademark rights in such 
descriptive or generic terms apart from the Microsoft(r) or 
Windows(r) trademarks.'' But even if Section VI(T) does not go 
so far, Microsoft could easily get Windows Media(r) Player outside 
of the ``Trademarked'' definition--;and thus outside 
the scope of the In this discussion we set aside the non-trivial 
question whether ``Windows'' itself is a generic, or at 
best descriptive, mark for the type of ``windowing'' 
graphical user interfaces invented at the Xerox Palo Alto Research 
Center in the 1970s, popularized by the Apple Lisa and Macintosh in 
the 1980s, and since used by Microsoft and many other software 
vendors. disclosure obligations that apply only to ``Microsoft 
Middleware''--;simply by abandoning the registration mark 
and moving the registration symbol to the left. Thus, Microsoft can 
transform ``Windows Media(r) Player,'' which might be 
subject to API disclosure requirements, into ``Windows(r) Media 
Player,'' which clearly is exempt.
    b. The ``Microsoft Middleware'' Definition Governing 
Disclosure Obligations Is Far Narrower Than The ``Microsoft 
Middleware Product'' Definition Governing OEM Flexibility
    That this highly restrictive definition is no accident is clear 
from comparison with the ``Microsoft Middleware Product'' 
definition which governs the icon-display obligations. To provisions 
paralleling the ``Microsoft Middleware'' definition, the 
``Microsoft Middleware Product'' definition adds several 
named current products, including ``Internet Explorer, 
Microsoft's Java Virtual Machine, Windows Media Player, Windows 
Messenger, Outlook Express and their successors,'' RPFJ 
VI(K)(1), although only to the extent that Microsoft 
``in its sole discretion'' (id. VI(U)) 
decides that those products are ``in a Windows Operating System 
Product.'' Id. VI(K)(1). Thus, Microsoft's icon 
display/removal obligations for those named products would not 
change merely because of a strategic product renaming or abandonment 
of a trademark that combines the Microsoft(r) or Windows(r) name 
with generic or descriptive terms. But none of those current 
products is named in the ``Microsoft Middleware'' 
definition that governs the disclosure obligations. That enables 
Microsoft to manipulate whether those products, although surely 
middleware, also satisfy the four subparts of RPFJ 
VI(J).
    c. The CIS Broadens The ``Trademarked'' Definition 
Beyond Its Terms
    The CIS overstates the breadth of the ``Trademarked'' 
definition, contending that it ``covers products distributed * 
* * under distinctive names or logos other than by the Microsoft(r) 
or Windows(r) names by themselves.'' CIS 22, 66 Fed. Reg. 
59,465. The CIS further claims that the exception for products known 
by combinations of generic terms with Microsoft(r) or Windows(r) 
does not cover marks that ``are presented as a part of a 
distinctive logo or another stylized presentation because the mark 
itself would not be either generic or descriptive.'' CIS 23, 66 
Fed. Reg. 59,465 (emphasis added). To the contrary, the terms of the 
RPFJ definition of ``Trademarked'' focus entirely on 
``names,'' not ``logos'' or ``marks'' 
as a whole. RPFJ VI(T). The distinction is striking: 
the word ``name'' appears five times in the definition, 
and ``descriptive or generic terms'' appears three times. 
Neither ``logo'' nor ``mark'' appears at all.
    Microsoft clearly appreciates the distinction. Although 
Microsoft apparently has not yet formally abandoned the mark 
``Internet Explorer'' (U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 2277122), 
it does not assert that mark when it lists its trademarks as a 
warning to the public. See http://www.microsoft.com/misc/info/
cpyright.htm. Microsoft does list its trademark for the Microsoft 
Internet Explorer logo, however. Id.; see U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 
2470273.
    d. Microsoft Can Easily Manipulate Which Middleware Releases Are 
``New Major Versions''
    Indeed, even a ``Microsoft Middleware Product'' 
satisfying that four-part test may not be ``Microsoft 
Middleware'' subject to the disclosure obligation unless it is 
a ``new major version'' of the product, that is, if the 
release is ``identified by a whole number or by a number with 
just a single digit to the right of the decimal point.'' RPFJ 
VI(J). That has two implications. First, Microsoft can 
simply adopt a different method of naming new releases. Second, even 
under current practice a version with two digits to the right of the 
decimal point may fix significant errors, so that disclosure only of 
the prior version of the APIs might leave developers without the 
ability to invoke some needed functionality with the disclosed APIs.
    D. The Disclosure Provisions--;Particularly Those Concerning 
``Communications Protocols''--;Depend On An Undefined 
And Thus Unenforceable Concept of ``Interoperability''
    Both the API and Communications Protocol disclosure provisions 
define the scope of the data to be disclosed as that necessary to 
permit non-Microsoft products to ``interoperate'' with the 
Windows client OS and to ``interoperate natively'' with 
Microsoft server operating system products. See RPFJ 
III(D), (E). The disclosure obligations are limited to 
``the sole purpose of interoperating with a Windows Operating 
System Product.'' Id.
    The obligations depend on the meaning of 
``interoperate,'' but the RPFJ never defines that term, 
and there is no non-discrimination provision attached to this 
obligation. That is critical because interoperability is not 
something that can be achieved half way. Either two software 
products interoperate for all functions that they must perform 
together, or they do not. Any impediment in any aspect of the 
interoperation nullifies the interoperability. The CIS seems to 
equate ``interoperate'' with ``fully take advantage 
of,'' see CIS 36, 66 Fed. Reg. 59,468, but there is no such 
language in the RPFJ itself.
    The Communications Protocol disclosure provision (RPFJ 
III(E))outlines a seeming ``obligation'' that 
is entirely undefined. Section III(E) seems to require disclosure of 
Communications Protocols on Windows clients that are ``used to 
interoperate natively * * * with a Microsoft server operating system 
product.'' But just as ``interoperate'' is not 
defined, neither does the RPFJ define ``Microsoft server 
operating system product.''
    One of the most important aspects of the Windows 2000 Server 
product bundle is Microsoft's web server, IIS. In the absence of a 
definition of ``Microsoft server operating system 
product,'' however, it is unclear whether the disclosure 
obligation encompasses protocols used to interoperate with this and 
other aspects of the current server product. Cf. RPFJ 
VI(U) (defining ``Windows Operating System 
Product'' as all software code ``distributed commercially 
* * * as Windows 2000 Professional'' and other named products, 
and ``Personal Computer versions'' of their successors).
    Again, the CIS attempts to provide assurances that go beyond the 
terms of the proposed judgment. The CIS states (at 37, 66 Fed. Reg. 
59469):
    The term ``server operating system product'' includes, 
but is not limited to, the entire Windows 2000 Server product 
families and any successors. All software code that is identified as 
being incorporated within a Microsoft server operating system and/or 
is distributed with the server operating system (whether or not its 
installation is optional or is subject to supplemental license 
agreements) is encompassed by the term. For example, a number of 
server software

[[Page 28375]]

products and functionality, including Internet Information Services 
(a ``web server'') and Active Directory (a 
``directory server''), are included in the commercial 
distribution of most versions of Windows 2000 Server and fall within 
the ambit of ``server operating system product.''
    That definition would be appropriate. But no corresponding 
language--;no enforceable definition--;appears in the RPFJ.
    E. The Narrow Scope Of The Disclosure Provisions Contrasts 
Sharply With The Broader Definitions In DOJ's Earlier Remedy 
Proposals
    Before liability had been confirmed on appeal, DOJ took a far 
broader view of what should be disclosed. The interim remedies in 
the vacated judgment required disclosure of APIs, Communications 
Interfaces, and ``technical information'' needed to enable 
competing products ``to interoperate effectively with Microsoft 
Platform Software.'' 97 F. Supp.2d at 67 (3(b)). That 
disclosure requirement was backed up by a requirement, absent from 
the RPFJ, that Microsoft create a secure facility so that developers 
could work with Windows source code to ensure that their 
applications worked properly on the Microsoft platform, gee id.
    The definition of ``technical information,'' moreover, 
helped ensure that disclosure would be complete and not subject to 
many different methods of manipulative narrowing. The 
``technical information'' definition encompassed the 
following items: all information regarding the identification and 
means of using APIs and Communications Interfaces that competent 
software developers require to make their products running on any 
computer interoperate effectively with Microsoft Platform Software 
running on a Personal Computer. Technical information includes but 
is not limited to reference implementations, communications 
protocols, file formats, data formats, syntaxes and grammars, data 
structure definitions and layouts, error codes, memory allocation 
and deallocation conventions, threading and synchronization 
conventions, functional specifications and descriptions, algorithms 
for data translation or reformatting (including compression/
decompression algorithms and encryption/decryption algorithms), 
registry settings, and field contents.
    97 F. Supp.2d at 73 (7(dd)).
    Indeed, DOJ's position was stronger even before liability had 
been imposed at all.
    Draft 18 from the Posner mediation imposed a disclosure 
obligation using this definition Of ``technical 
information'':
    all information, regarding the identification and means of using 
APIs (or communications interfaces), that competent software 
developers require to make their products running on a personal 
computer, server, or other device interoperate satisfactorily with 
Windows platform software running on a personal computer. Technical 
information includes reference implementa- tions, communications 
protocols, file formats, data formats, data structure definitions 
and layouts, error codes, memory allocation and deallocation 
conversions, threading and synchronization conventions, algorithms 
for data translation or reformatting (including compression/
decompression algorithms and encryption/decryption algorithms), 
registry settings, and field contents. The RPFJ, by contrast, 
contains no analogue to these precise and inclusive definitions. 
Instead, the RPFJ relies solely on the circular (and completely 
manipulable) definition of API (RPFJ VI(A)), a 
similarly narrow definition of ``Communications Protocol'' 
(id. VI(B)), and a definition of 
``Documentation'' that is wholly dependent on the API 
definition (id. VI(E)).
    F. The ``Security'' Exceptions in Section III(J) 
Permit Microsoft To Avoid Its Disclosure Obligations
    RPFJ III(J) provides Microsoft with two additional 
lines of defense in the event that any competitively sensitive APIs 
nonetheless fall within the malleable definition of API. Section 
III(J)(1) severely undercuts the disclosure requirements to the 
extent they apply in the modem world where security protocols are 
critical to any communication between networked computers, 
particularly over the Internet. And Section III(J)(2) provides 
Microsoft with seemingly unfettered discretion to decide who is 
worthy to receive technical information necessary to make middleware 
function on the Internet.
    Microsoft can plausibly rely on Section III(J) to decline to 
comply with disclosure requests based on concerns with 
authentication and security that it will be able to assert with 
respect to any program that involves communication between a PC and 
a server on the Internet (or even within many private networks). 
Authentication, security, and similar protection mechanisms are and 
will continue to be integral parts of the functioning of those 
products. See, e.g., Comment, William A. Hodkowski, The Future of 
Internet Security: How New Technologies Will Shape the Internet and 
Affect the Law, 13 SANTA CLARA COMPUTER & HIGH TECH. L.J. 217 
(1997). Indeed, security and rights-protection are particularly 
critical to Internet-based economic activity, which encompasses much 
of the computing on the Internet. As a consequence, the security 
mechanisms are critically important to any Internet-based middleware 
threat to the Windows OS monopoly.
    For example, digital rights management (``DRM'') has 
become a principal part of Windows Media Player. Allowing Microsoft 
to withhold data needed to permit rivals to interoperate with the 
DRM specifications in Windows Media Player--;specifications that 
Microsoft is making universal by including Windows Media Player on 
every PC--; may well end effective competition for media players 
within the next upgrade cycle for Windows. Similarly, any distant 
remaining possibility of Internet browser (or even e-mail client) 
competition should be squelched by the RPFJ's approval for Microsoft 
to withhold parts of encryption-related protocols (again, as 
distinct from the customer-specific keys that make use of those 
protocols). For another example, Secure Socket Layer (SSL) is an 
open standard that has been critical to the open development of a 
relatively secure Internet. As Microsoft implements a proprietary 
version of SSL--;one that others will have to follow given the 
ubiquity of the Microsoft browser as a result of the misconduct at 
issue in this case--;it will be able to conceal critical layers 
of that altered protocol from rivals, essentially ending the 
possibility of competition for client software for Internet 
computing. And by giving Microsoft a basis to conceal authentication 
protocols (not merely data), the RPFJ frees Microsoft Passport from 
scrutiny and permits Microsoft to bind a proprietary universal 
password and identity utility to its monopoly operating system 
without hope of interoperation.
    By permitting Microsoft to withhold key parts of encryption, 
digital rights management, authentication, and other security 
protocols, the RPFJ effectively allocates Web-based computing to the 
monopolist of the desktop. A decree could hardly try to place a 
clearer stamp of approval on an expansion of the scope of an 
illegally maintained monopoly.
    1. The Exclusions for Security-Related APIs and Protocols in 
RPFJ(J)(1) Permit Microsoft To Hobble Disclosures That Are Critical 
in Internet Computing
    It is no coincidence that Bill Gates has now emphasized the 
centrality of security concerns in Microsoft's future software 
offerings. See, e.g., John Markoff, Stung by Security Flaws, 
Microsoft Makes Software Safety a Top Goal, N.Y. TIMES, Jan. 17, 
2002, at C1. That is no more than an acknowledgment of market and 
technical realities that have been widely known throughout the 
industry for years as Internet computing has taken hold. That market 
reality should have been sufficient to make clear that an indistinct 
exception of the type in RPFJ III(J)(1) would allow 
Microsoft to disclose ``crippled'' versions of APIs and 
Communications Protocols. Microsoft's sudden dedication to security 
leaves no doubt that it will inject security aspects into its 
proprietary APIs and its proprietary, extended implementations of 
Communication Protocols. Under the terms of Section III(J)(1), 
Microsoft can easily argue that disclosure of those 
aspects--;necessary for one machine to communicate with 
another--;will compromise the security from any installation or 
group of installations. See also Stiglitz/Furman Dec. 30.
    The CIS maintains that Section III(J)(1) simply protects 
Microsoft and its customers from disclosure of customer-specific 
``keys, authorization tokens, or enforcement criteria,'' 
and states that the exception ``does not permit [Microsoft] to 
withhold any capabilities that are inherent in the Kerberos and 
Secure Audio Path features as they are implemented in a Windows 
Operating System Product.'' CIS 52, 66 Fed. Reg. 59,472. But 
that reading does not square with the text of the exemption. The 
quoted examples are specifically presented ``without 
limitation.'' RPFJ III(J)(1). The RPFJ language 
easily permits Microsoft to contend that any release of the way its 
proprietary security protocols work ``would compromise the 
security of a particular installation.''
    Most important, Section III(J)(1) clearly permits Microsoft to 
withhold portions of APIs or Communications Protocols, but the 
examples given of keys and authorization codes are not parts of APIs 
or Communications Protocols. They may be part

[[Page 28376]]

of customer- specific Documentation, rather than the Documentation 
used by customers, consultants, and developers to create or identify 
and implement particular keys, tokens, or enforcement criteria.) The 
APIs and Communications Protocols for security-related applications 
are not customer-specific, nor does their disclosure compromise 
security. To the contrary, the most powerful encryption and other 
security-related software is openly disclosed, as is the Kerberos 
standard, or even open source, as is the federal government's new 
encryption standard. See, e.g., Watch your AES: A new encryption 
standard is emerging, Red Herring (Dec. 1, 1999) (open source 
government standard).
    Unless RPFJ III(J)(1) refers to a null set, 
however, Microsoft will have a basis to withhold some parts of 
Communications Protocols and APIs. The CIS states that 
Communications Protocols ``must be made available for third 
parties to license at all layers of the communications stack,'' 
(CIS 36-;37, 66 Fed. Reg. 59,468 (emphasis added)) but the RPFJ 
to which Microsoft agreed--;and which alone is potentially 
enforceable--; says no such thing. To the contrary, Section 
III(J)(1) explicitly relieves Microsoft from the obligation to 
license some ``portions or layers of Communications 
Protocols'' (and some ``[p]ortions of 
APIs'')--;not just client-specific data. If part of a 
Communications Protocol is withheld, not ``all layers of the 
communications stack'' are ``available * * * to 
license.'' And if part of a Communications Protocol is 
unavailable, interoperation is impossible; at certain points, the 
interaction between two computers will break down.
    Limited withholding of APIs or Communications Protocols (rather 
than merely withholding customer-specific data) will render 
middleware non-functional, since software cannot interoperate with 
other software partially. Carving off some aspects of 
interoperability means that there is no interoperability, thwarting 
the premise of the disclosure provisions altogether.
    The CIS also describes other limits that do not exist in the 
text of the RPFJ. The CIS claims that the RPFJ requires disclosure 
of the Communications Protocols used for the Microsoft-proprietary 
implementation of the Kerberos security standard a 
``polluted'' Kerberos that is the strict analogue to the 
``pollute[d]'' Java that figured prominently at trial. See 
Microsoft III, 253 F.3d at 76-;77 (quoting 22 J.A. 14,514). But 
Section III(J) explicitly relieves Microsoft of the obligation to 
disclose ``portions'' of APIs or Communications Protocols 
that would ``compromise the security of a particular 
installation or group of installations of security software. That is 
an open invitation to withhold some part of the Microsoft-
proprietary variation of Kerberos.
    The type of customer-specific information that the CIS claims is 
all that can be withheld could and should be described much more 
accurately and specifically in the RPFJ, not as [p]ortions of APIs 
or * * * portions or layers of Communications Protocols,'' but 
rather as ``customer-specific or installation-specific data the 
disclosure of which would compromise the security of a particular 
installation or group of installations of anti-piracy, anti-virus, 
software licensing, digital rights management, encryption or 
authentication systems, including without limitation keys, 
authorization tokens or enforcement criteria.'' But that is not 
the approach the RPFJ takes. Rather, the RPFJ makes clear that 
Microsoft is entitled to withhold, not merely customer- or 
installation-specific data, but some ``portions'' of APIs 
and some ``portions or layers'' of Communications 
Protocols. All communication of substance between desktops (or other 
client computers) and server computers over the Internet 
increasingly involves layers of security protocols, anti-virus 
routines, and the like. And one of Microsoft's principal current 
efforts is to foist its own version of digital rights management 
(DRM) upon providers of copyrighted content over the Internet.
    When Microsoft asserts a right to withhold information, it will 
be difficult indeed for the Technical Committee, DO J, or the Court 
to exclude the possibility that particular ``portions or layers 
of Communications Protocols,'' or ``[p]ortions'' of 
the APIs that permit middleware programs to operate atop Microsoft 
operating systems, in fact ``compromise the security of a 
particular installation or group of installations.'' RPFJ 
III(J)(1). Any such determination is likely to be time-
consuming, and related enforcement therefore would be slow. It 
should be a simple matter for Microsoft to delay disclosures of this 
type long enough to disadvantage competitors.
    2. RPFJ III(J)(2) Permits Microsoft To Refuse Effective 
Disclosure To A Range Of Potentially Effective Competitors
    While RPFJ III(J)(1) allows Microsoft to refuse to 
disclose portions of APIs, RPFJ III(J)(2) permits 
Microsoft to withhold all of any ``API, Documentation, or 
Communications Protocol'' having to do with ``anti-piracy 
systems, anti-virus technologies, license enforcement mechanisms, 
authentication/authorization security, or third party intellectual 
property protection mechanisms of any Microsoft product.'' The 
RPFJ allows Microsoft to select to whom it will disclose this 
information by imposing several tests that may be based on standards 
apparently committed to Microsoft's sole discretion as much as is 
the definition of Windows Operating System Product.
    Thug, RPFJ III(J)(2)(b) permits Microsoft to 
evaluate whether a competitor has a ``reasonable business 
need'' for the desired information. What Microsoft is likely to 
consider a ``reasonable'' business need by a competitor 
may be narrow indeed. As the DC Circuit observed, Microsoft viewed 
its desire ``to preserve its'' monopoly ``power in 
the operating system market'' as a procompetitive justification 
for exclusionary conduct. Microsoft III, 253 F.3d at 71. No doubt 
Microsoft will view direct or indirect efforts to undermine its 
hammerlock on the OS market as unreasonable efforts to confuse 
consumers or impair the ``Windows experience.''
    Even bona fide attempts by a monopolist to objectively evaluate 
a potential competitor's ``reasonable business need'' can 
scarcely be expected to produce consistent or foreseeable results. 
Rather, that amorphous standard is likely to produce a flood of 
disputes--;each of which will delay the competitor's receipt of 
technical information while Microsoft gains more time to respond (by 
legal or illegal means) to the competitive threat. Moreover, the 
``reasonable business need'' must be for a ``planned 
or shipping product.'' If the product is already 
``shipping,'' it may be too late for disclosure to be 
helpful in the market. How fully ``planned'' a product 
must be raises further questions that Microsoft will be able to 
resolve to its own disadvantage.
    In addition, Microsoft need not provide security-related APIs, 
protocols, or documentation to any vendor that does not 
``meet[] reasonable, objective standards established by 
Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of its 
business.'' RPFJ III(J)(2)(c) (emphasis added). 
That provides Microsoft with a basis for excluding almost all 
nascent competitors except for those associated with established, 
profitable companies. It would not be difficult to craft 
``reasonable, objective standards'' for ``viability 
of [a] business'' that would exclude any Internet-focused 
startup, including Netscape in 1995. Indeed, the history of the 
software industry both before and after the dot-com bubble shows 
that very few software companies have had ``viable'' 
businesses. Certainly Section III(J)(2)(c) would give Microsoft at 
least a debatable basis for withholding the APIs and Communications 
Protocols needed to interoperate with Microsoft software over the 
Internet from all open source ISVs--;who are more interested in 
constantly improving the quality of software than in obtaining 
licensing profits. Although open source software is widely 
recognized as a major threat to Microsoft's monopoly power, the 
business models even of the leading Linux providers might fail any 
number of ``reasonable, objective standards'' for 
``viability.'' Indeed, Microsoft's CEO Steve Ballmer 
describes open source software as a ``cancer'' that 
threatens the viability of any software business. See Mark Boslet, 
Open Source.'' Microsoft Takes Heat, INDUSTRY STANDARD, July 
30, 2001; Dave Newbart, Microsoft CEO Takes Launch Break with the 
Sun-Times, CHI. SUN-TIMES, June 1, 2001, at 57. For that matter, it 
is not entirely unreasonable to regard head-to-head competition with 
Microsoft in platform software as a less than viable business plan; 
certainly most venture capitalist and other investors hold that 
view. It would not be difficult for Microsoft to craft 
``objective'' standards of business viability that would 
exclude Corel and Novell, to name two examples. Microsoft should be 
able to exclude many sources of potential cross-platform middleware 
threats through RPFJ III(J)(2)(c) alone.
    Yet RPFJ III(J)(2) contains yet another method for 
screening competitors from access to technical information needed by 
Internet-centric middleware applications. Any ISV that clears the 
hurdles and receives the information nonetheless must submit its 
implementation of the APIs, Documentation or Communications 
Protocols for review by a Microsoft-approved third party (likely a 
captive commercial ally) ``to test for and ensure verification 
and compliance with

[[Page 28377]]

Microsoft specifications for use of the API or interface, which 
specifications shall be related to proper operation and integrity of 
the systems and mechanisms identified in this paragraph.'' RPFJ 
III(J)(2)(d). ``[P]roper'' no doubt will mean 
``the way Microsoft does it,'' making this provision into 
yet another way in which Microsoft can control the pace of 
innovation to ensure that the market has no or limited access to 
products that improve upon Microsoft's offerings. This mechanism 
means that vendors who tried to adapt APIs to function as bridges to 
other platforms would have to give Microsoft the ammunition to 
defeat that function--;if not simply disapprove it and await the 
slow operation, if any, of the RPFJ enforcement mechanism.
    The CIS suggests that there are strict limits on Microsoft's 
discretionary ability to deny access to security-related aspects of 
Communications Protocols and APIs, CIS 53, 66 Fed. Reg. 59,473, but 
those limits are absent from the decree language. The CIS contends 
that these exceptions ``are limited to the narrowest scope of 
what is necessary and reasonable, and are focused on screening out 
individuals or firms that * * * have a history of engaging in 
unlawful conduct related to computer software * * *, do not have any 
legitimate basis for needing the information, or are using the 
information in a way that threatens the proper operation and 
integrity of the systems and mechanisms to which they relate.'' 
Id. Setting aside the opportunity for Microsoft to argue, as it has 
in other contexts, that the injection of competing software 
``threatens the proper operation and integrity'' of its 
products, see Microsoft III, 253 F.3d at 63-;64, the CIS simply 
does not address the broadest basis for withholding APIs and 
Communications Protocols under Section 111(1)(2): Microsoft's 
ability to decide, based on criteria within its own discretion, that 
an ISV is not ``authentic[]'' and ``viab[le].'' 
RPFJ III(J)(2). That provision could provide a basis 
for excluding all but a handful of other software companies.
    G. RPFJ III(I) Would Place A Judicial Imprimatur On 
Microsoft's Use Of Technical Information As A Lever To Extract 
Competitors'' Intellectual Property
    The RPFJ would actually increase Microsoft's bargaining power by 
explicitly placing a judicial imprimatur on demands by Microsoft 
that recipients of APIs cross- license any intellectual property 
developed using the APIs. Section III(I) of the RPFJ permits 
Microsoft to use intellectual property licensing terms to impede 
whatever competitive benefits otherwise might have arisen from its 
disclosure obligations. Microsoft's licenses ``need be no 
broader than is necessary to ensure'' the licensee's ability to 
``exercise the options or alternatives expressly 
provided'' by the RPFJ. RPFJ III(I)(2). A welter of litigation 
over the breadth that is ``necessary''--;and the 
collateral restrictions that are permissible--;is certain to 
continue through the life of the decree.
    Similarly, Microsoft should have no difficulty delaying the use 
of any option for which it is entitled to charge a royalty, simply 
by setting a ``reasonable'' royalty (RPFJ 
III(I)(1)) beyond what any OEM could afford to pay in 
that competitive, low-margin business. If OEMs have to pay Microsoft 
to exercise any of their icon-shuffling options --; a state of 
affairs clearly envisioned in RPFJ III(I)--;the 
slim likelihood that any OEM will take advantage of those provisions 
will be lessened still further. Microsoft need not permit transfers 
or sublicenses of API rights, imposing yet another barrier to entry. 
Id. III(I)(3). And Microsoft could ensure, through 
licenses, that end-users could not make competitively significant 
alterations to the Microsoft-approved package.
    Most important, however, the RPFJ specifically permits Microsoft 
to use its monopoly as a means to force access to others'' 
intellectual property. Microsoft can assert a right to license 
``any intellectual property rights'' a competitor 
``may have relating to the exercise of their options or 
alternatives provided by'' the RPFJ. RPFJ 
III(J)(5). Thus, to take advantage of a competitive 
option, an ISV will need to license its product to Microsoft, and 
hope that Microsoft does not use that license as a means to produce 
a copycat program and bundle it into Windows. Many companies long 
since departed the software industry after entering into what they 
thought were limited exchanges of intellectual property with 
Microsoft. 16
    Although the CIS states that Microsoft could demand only any IP 
rights it would need to comply with its own disclosure obligations 
under the RPFJ, CIS 50-;51, 66 Fed. Reg. 59,472, the broad 
``relating to'' language does not compel that narrow 
reading, and may not support it at all. The vague limitations in 
Section III(I)(5) are unlikely to reassure ISVs that Microsoft will 
not use its license to analyze the ISV's IP rights well enough to 
design around it and bundle a copycat program into Windows or 
Office, as has happened many times before. This weapon should give 
Microsoft additional ability to prevent industry participants from 
taking advantage of the superficially appealing provisions of the 
RPFJ.
    VI. BUILT-IN DELAYS EXACERBATE THE DECREE'S UNJUSTIFIABLY BRIEF 
DURATION
    It is remarkable that the RPFJ would reward Microsoft for 
litigating and losing broadly on liability with a consent decree 
that is shorter than other such decrees, and may 16 See, e.g., 
Testimony of Mitchell Kertzman before the Sen. Jud. Comm., July 23, 
1998 (detailing Sybase's difficulties in this regard); Statement of 
Michael Jeffress before the Sen. Jud. Comm., July 23, 1998 (after 
TVHost revealed its intellectual property to Microsoft in failed 
negotiations to sell the company, Microsoft imitated the product). 
be the shortest ever. DOJ antitrust consent decrees now routinely 
last ten years. 17 Section V of the RPFJ provides for a term of only 
five years, however, less time even than Microsoft has engaged in 
the illegal conduct that was the subject of this litigation. The 
decree plainly should be longer than the period between the 
initiation of the misconduct and the imposition of relief, and at 
least as long as the typical relief. 18 Microsoft has enjoyed the 
benefits of its misconduct for at least seven years. The RPFJ not 
only would allow Microsoft to retain those benefits, but would 
subject Microsoft to its light and uncertain obligations for no more 
than five years, and scarcely four and one-half years for the many 
obligations that are delayed.
    The RPFJ further abbreviates its already brief duration, and 
undermines its already insubstantial requirements, by building in 
long delays before Microsoft must comply with its limited duties. 
Thus, Microsoft need not comply with the icon-related requirements 
until November 2002, see RPFJ III(H)(1), although 
Microsoft needed only two weeks after the DC Circuit decision to 
offer OEMs roughly the same flexibility with icon display as the 
RPFJ requires, and needed no more than three additional months to 
implement that flexibility on Windows XP. See Microsoft Announces 
Greater OEM Flexibility for Windows (Microsoft press release July 
11, 2001). Similarly, Microsoft need not comply with its API 
disclosure requirements or the OEM flexibility provisions until 
November 2002, RPFJ III(D), (H), and need not 
comply with the Communica-
    As of 1998 it was the policy of the Antitrust Division that 
consent decrees last for at least 10 years. See ANTITRUST DIVISION 
MANUAL, at IV:54 (3d ed. Feb. 1998); see also V VON KALINOWSKI ET 
AL., ANTITRUST LAWS AND TRADE REGULATION 
96.01[2], at 96-;4; 96.02[1] at 96-;10 
(2d ed. 2000).
    If Microsoft actually and convincingly lost its monopoly before 
the expiration of a decree of appropriate length, it could, of 
course, move for modification or termination of the decree under 
Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1992).
    Protocol disclosure requirement until August 2002. Id. 
III(E). See also Stiglitz/Furman Dec. 30. These built-
in delays cut far into the unusually brief term of the decree.
    The ``Timely Manner'' governing Microsoft's disclosure 
obligations in RPFJ III(D)-(E)--;after the 
initial delay--;permits Microsoft to withhold that disclosure 
until a product version has been distributed to 150,000 beta 
testers. See RPFJ VI(R). ``Beta testers'' in 
undefined. Until recently, Microsoft, like other vendors, 
distinguished between ``beta testers'' who agreed to 
provide substantial feedback to the software manufacturer, and 
``beta copies'' of a program that might be distributed 
without such obligations or expectations. Few, if any, beta testing 
programs involved 150,000 beta testers under that usage. A return to 
the former terminology could postpone the ``Timely 
Manner'' until commercial release. And in any event, it should 
be a simple matter for Microsoft to delay distribution of any beta 
version to 150,000 testers, however defined.
    Here again, the contrast with the interim remedies of the 
original decree is striking. The ``Timely Manner'' 
definition in that judgment required Microsoft to disclose 
``APIs, Technical Information and Communications Interfaces * * 
* at the earliest of the time that'' those items were
    (1) disclosed to Microsoft's applications developers, (2) used 
by Microsoft's own

[[Page 28378]]

Platform Software developers in software released by Microsoft in 
alpha, beta, release candidate, final or other form, (3) disclosed 
to any third party, or (4) within 90 days of a final release of a 
Windows Operating System Product, no less than 5 days after a 
material change is made between the most recent beta or release 
candidate version and the final release.
    97 F. Supp.2d at 73-;74 (7(ff)) (emphasis 
added). While the vacated judgment made a strong effort to place 
outside developers on the same footing as Microsoft's applications 
developers throughout the development process, the RPFJ permits 
Microsoft to delay disclosure until the last minute, without any 
analogue to the requirement that Microsoft promptly update changes 
made in the final pre-release stage.
    Another significant built-in delay results from the definition 
of ``Non-Microsoft Middleware Product'' to include only 
products that have one million users. RPFJ VI(N) (ii). 
That definition governs the extent of the anti-retaliation 
provisions in RPFJ III(A)(1), III(C), and III(H). 
Moreover, the icon flexibility and information disclosure provisions 
apply only to Microsoft Middleware and Microsoft Middleware 
Products, each of which must have functionality similar to a Non-
Microsoft Middleware Product. See RPFJ VI(J)(3), 
VI(K)(2)(b)(ii). By restricting all of these protections to 
middleware products that have distributed more than one million 
copies, the RPFJ encourages Microsoft to crush new middleware 
threats at the earliest stages. That is, the RPFJ puts a 
premium--;indeed, a judicial imprimatur--;on the 
monopolistic exclusion of nascent threats before the innovations in 
those products reach a sizable mass of consumers. That flies in the 
face of the concerns behind the judgments of liability in this case. 
See Microsoft III, 253 F.3d at 54, 79.
    VII. ADDITIONAL WEAKNESSES UNDERCUT THE RPFJ
    A. The Anti-Retaliation Provisions Are Deeply Flawed
    Although anti-retaliation provisions are clearly necessary, the 
provisions in the RPFJ proceed from a misguided premise that 
retaliation by the monopolist--;abuse of monopoly power--;is 
permitted unless squarely forbidden. The well-meaning restrictions 
in the RPFJ leave Microsoft with ample recourse to use its monopoly 
power to retaliate against those who aid competitive threats. See 
Stiglitz/Furman Dec. 31-;32.
    Most important, the anti-retaliation provisions permit Microsoft 
to withdraw the Windows license of any OEM (or other licensee) that 
does not serve Microsoft's anticompetitive bidding. The CIS (at 27, 
66 Fed. Reg. 59,466) suggests that the provision of RPFJ 
III(A) requiring notice and opportunity to cure a 
violation provides some kind of protection to OEMs. But the 
protection is evanescent, disappearing entirely after two notices 
within a license term. See RPFJ III(A). See also 
Stiglitz/Furman Dec. 31-;32.
    Such notices will become routine, quickly and completely 
nullifying this provision. In the rough-and-tumble of everyday 
business, parties frequently diverge in minor respects from the 
terms of their agreements. The CIS admits that ``Windows 
license royalties and terms are inherently complex.'' CIS 28, 
66 Fed. Reg. 59,466. Given that complexity, it would be surprising 
if most OEMs did not transgress some term of their Windows licensing 
agreements every year or so, if not more often. Such transgressions 
would provide ample basis for Microsoft to retaliate without fear of 
interference from the RPFJ.
    There is no limit on what Microsoft can invoke as a reason for 
termination, that is, there is no requirement that terminations be 
for cause, much less for a material breach of the license agreement. 
Indeed, the sudden termination that Microsoft may impose after two 
notices--;even notices of purported violations that were 
promptly and completely cured--;need not even be based on 
something the OEM could cure.
    The anti-retaliation provisions for software and hardware 
vendors contain another weakness. Section III(F)(1)(a) forbids 
retaliation against hardware and software vendors who support 
software that competes with Microsoft Platform Software or that runs 
on other platforms. But that provision therefore permits Microsoft 
to use its Windows monopoly to crush middleware vendors if Microsoft 
does not yet have competing middleware (see RPFJ 
VI(K)-(L)) and whose middleware applications are 
used on the Windows platform--;where any middleware would have 
to start in order to be a practical bridge to another platform.
    Moreover, when prohibiting a specific type of retaliation would 
also help undermine the applications barrier to entry, the RPFJ hews 
to a general approach rather than focusing on precise adjudicated 
conduct. For example, Microsoft threatened to discontinue its port 
of Microsoft Office for the Macintosh unless Apple ceased supporting 
Netscape Navigator. See Microsoft III, 253 F.3d at 73-;74. Yet 
the RPFJ does not require Microsoft to continue to offer Mac Office 
(much less to keep the port current)--;an expedient that would 
take away Microsoft's weapon rather than merely admonishing it to 
behave well, and would tend to undermine the applications barrier to 
entry as well.
    B. Microsoft Can Evade The Price Discrimination Restrictions
    The uniform pricing provisions in RPFJ III(B) have 
too narrow a reach to provide significant limits on Microsoft's 
ability to engage in price discrimination in order to force OEMs to 
eschew non-Microsoft products that may threaten Microsoft's OS 
monopoly. Microsoft's well-known market position in other products 
permits easy evasion of these limits. For example, nothing prevents 
Microsoft from discriminating in the pricing of its monopoly suite 
of desktop productivity applications, Microsoft Office, to which 
every OEM of any size needs access. Moreover, the leading PC OEMs 
all build server computers using Intel-based hardware, and 
increasingly rely on revenue from servers to make up for the 
exceptionally low margins on desktop PCs. To continue in the Intel-
based server business, PC OEMs must license Microsoft's server 
operating systems, which are dominant on the Intel-based platform. 
The RPFJ places no limits on Microsoft's pricing of server operating 
systems, providing another outlet for the nullification of RPFJ 
III(B).
    Even on their own terms, however, the RPFJ pricing provisions 
contain a substantial loophole. Microsoft can reward an OEM for an 
``absolute level * * * of promotion'' of Microsoft 
products. RPFJ III(A). That provides a means for 
Microsoft to distinguish between OEMs who make sure that Microsoft 
software dominates their offerings, and OEMs who either promote 
competing software or simply do not interfere with consumers'' 
choices.
    C. Microsoft Can Enforce De Facto Exclusivity
    Despite a superficial prohibition, Sections III(F)(2) and Ill(G) 
permit Microsoft to impose practical, effective exclusivity 
obligations on ISVs and others who need access to Windows to develop 
their products. Microsoft need do no more than recast its agreements 
with ISVs as contracts to ``use, distribute, or promote * * * 
Microsoft software'' or ``to develop software for, or in 
conjunction with, Microsoft,'' RPFJ III(F)(2), or 
as a ``joint venture,'' joint development * * * 
arrangement'' or ``joint services arrangement.'' Id. 
III(G). New ``joint development agreements'' 
or ``joint services arrangements'' likely will supersede 
the current licenses for use by ISVs of Microsoft software 
developments tools and perhaps also the current arrangements for 
preferential access under MSDN. At best, a decree court would have 
to undertake a full antitrust analysis of whether the joint venture 
was ``bona fide.'' Id. III(G). To nullify 
RPFJ III(F)(2), Microsoft could simply change its 
development tools agreements to require use of Microsoft 
software--; which literally would be ``a bona fide 
contractual obligation * * * to use * * * Microsoft software.'' 
Since any ISV that wants its software to run on Windows almost 
certainly would need to use Microsoft's development tools, the anti-
exclusivity provision, like so many others in the RPFJ, would have 
no practical effect.
    DOJ has defended this provision as necessary to permit 
legitimate ``procompetitive collaborations.'' CIS 44, 66 
Fed. Reg. 59,470. But the broad terms of the RPFJ itself provide 
little basis for hope that the objects of joint ventures permitting 
exclusivity will not include a variety of ``new'' products 
that amount to little more than routine alterations to Windows and 
other Microsoft products in conjunction with requests from other 
industry participants. It is not uncommon for an ISV to ask for a 
new API, or for an IHV to ask for some other specification in 
Windows. These exercises soon may become objects of ``joint 
ventures'' or ``joint development agreements'' under 
RPFJ III(G).
    RPFJ III(G)(1) undercuts its superficial 
prohibition on contracts that would require participants at 
different levels of the market to install or promote Microsoft 
Platform Software to a ``fixed percentage'' of those 
participants'' own customers. Section III(G)(1) permits 
Microsoft to impose such contracts so long as it ``in good 
faith obtains a representation that it is commercially practicable 
for the entity to provide equal or greater distribution, promotion, 
use or support for software that competes with

[[Page 28379]]

Microsoft Platform Software.'' Such representations should be 
easy to come by, so long as Microsoft pays enough. There is nothing 
to require a single party making such a representation actually to 
carry out the parallel distribution that it told Microsoft was 
``commercially practicable.'' And it should be easy enough 
for Microsoft, through a wink and a nod, to ensure that any such 
representations were not accompanied by efforts to prove that 
commercial practicability to Microsoft's detriment.
    VIII. THE RPFJ'S ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS ARE FUNDAMENTALLY 
INADEQUATE.
    As we have shown above, the RPFJ fails adequately to prevent 
Microsoft from engaging in illegal and anticompetitive practices, 
and allows it to continue the patterns of behavior that led to this 
litigation in the first place. The RPFJ suffers from an important 
secondary flaw, however: the enforcement mechanisms contained in 
Section IV are fundamentally inadequate. The RPFJ commits much of 
the practical enforcement responsibility to a ``Technical 
Committee,'' RPFJ IV(B), that would monitor 
``enforcement of and compliance with'' the RPFJ. Id. 
IV(B)(1). The Technical Committee is likely to impede 
enforcement rather than aid it.
    First, Microsoft--;the antitrust violator--;could exert 
inappropriate control over the membership of the Technical 
Committee. Rather than creating a special master or an independent 
review committee to monitor compliance with the consent decree, the 
RPFJ allows Microsoft to have an equal voice with the plaintiffs in 
choosing the members of the Technical Committee; indeed, Microsoft 
may choose one of the three members outright. Id. 
IV(B)(3). Although appointing a special master with 
real (though reviewable) power might make sense as a matter of 
judicial administration, allowing Microsoft to choose its own 
monitor makes no sense at all.
    The composition of the Technical Committee suffers from a second 
defect. The RPFJ provides that ``[t]he Technical Committee 
members shall be experts in software design and programming.'' 
RPFJ IV(B)(2) (emphasis added). The interpretation of 
the RPFJ is largely a legal matter, however, dependent on adequate 
knowledge of the antitrust Section after section of the RPFJ is 
extraordinarily vague. 19 Experts in software design simply will not 
have any basis adequately to review complaints that Microsoft's 19 
For example, as we discussed above the RPFJ relies heavily on a 
``reasonableness'' standard of conduct that simply 
reproduces a full analysis under the antitrust laws. Antitrust 
remedies, like other injunctive decrees, are supposed to be amenable 
to swift and sure enforcement, according to standards that give 
warning of what is forbidden and what is permitted both to the 
wrongdoer and to its potential victims. But again and again, the 
RPFJ would require both the Technical Committee and eventually the 
decree court to determine whether Microsoft's conduct was 
``reasonable.'' behavior fails to comply with the RPFJ. 
However, that is the entire purpose of the Technical Committee. Not 
only is the selection and composition of the Technical Committee 
problematic; the RPFJ's restrictions on how the Technical Committee 
can go about its business are equally inadequate. For example, it is 
likely that all third-party allegations of misconduct by Microsoft 
will be reviewed by the Technical Committee. 20 But the Technical 
Committee lacks any real power, and operates almost entirely in 
secrecy. Even if the Technical Committee finds Microsoft to be 
violating the RPFJ, its sole recourse is to ``advise Microsoft 
and the Plaintiffs of its conclusion and its proposal for 
cure.'' Id. IV(D)(4)(c). If DOJ or the settling State 
plaintiffs proceed with a complaint, none of the ``work 
product, findings or recommendations by the Technical Committee may 
be admitted in any enforcement proceeding before the Court for any 
purpose, and no member of the Technical Committee shall testify by 
deposition, in court or before any other tribunal regarding any 
matter related to [the RPFJ].'' Id. IV(D)(4)(d). 
Enforce- ment would have to start over from scratch. In effect, the 
Technical Committee's investigation is simply a waste of time. Even 
were the plaintiffs to decide, based on a Technical Committee 
report, that Microsoft had violated the RPFJ, the plaintiffs would 
need independently to investigate that violation under Section 
IV(A)(2). Indeed, the Technical Committee's reports to the 20 While 
third parties have the right to raise complaints with the Internal 
Compliance Officer, see RPFJ IV(C)(3)(g), the RPFJ 
gives them no incentive to do so; such complaints would merely allow 
a proven antitrust violator itself to determine whether it has 
violated the RPFJ or again violated the antitrust laws. Although the 
RPFJ also allows third parties to submit complaints directly to the 
plaintiffs, see id. IV(D)(1), the plaintiffs can 
thereafter at their sole discretion refer any such complaints to the 
Technical Committee, id. IV(D)(4)(a), or to the 
Internal Compliance Officer, id. IV(D)(3)(a). 
plaintiffs will be secret. See RPFJ IV(B)(8)(e), (9). 
Ultimately, the Technical Committee simply injects delay into the 
process. But delay is indisputably in Microsoft's interest; 
Microsoft's monopolies bring it $1 billion each month in free cash 
flow, see Rebecca Buckman, Microsoft Has the Cash, and Holders 
Suggest a Dividend, WALL ST. J., Jan 18, 2002, at A3. Microsoft not 
only can afford to contest enforcement vigorously, but would not 
have to postpone enforcement for long before the RPFJ expires.
    Finally, the ``crown jewel'' provision in the RPFJ is 
grossly inadequate. If at any point the court were to find that 
Microsoft had ``engaged in a pattern of willful and systematic 
violations,'' RPFJ V(B) (emphasis added), the RPFJ 
provides only one remedy for plaintiffs or the court: to extend the 
inadequate, and already overly-short, consent decree by ``up to 
two years.'' But that is no deterrent. Willful and systematic 
violations should result in divestiture that terminates the 
illegally maintained monopoly once and for all. See Microsoft III, 
253 F.3d at 103; United Shoe, 391 U.S. at 250. Slightly prolonging a 
failed decree makes no sense at all.
    CONCLUSION
    The Revised Proposed Final Judgment should be rejected as 
contrary to the public interest.
    Respectfully submitted.
    Donald M. Falk
    Mayer, Brown & Platt
    555 College Avenue
    Palo Alto, California 9430
    (650) 331-;2030
    (650) 331-;2060 facsimile
    David M. Gossett
    Mayer, Brown & Platt
    1909 K Street, NW
    Washington, DC 20006
    (202) 263-;3000
    Dated: January 28, 2002
    Edward J. Black
    Jason M. Mahler
    Computer and Communications
    Industry Association
    666 1lth Street NW
    Washington, DC 20001
    (202) 783-;0070
    BEFORE THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE UNITED STATES OF 
AMERICA, Plaintiff, V. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant. Civil 
Action No. 98-;1232 (CKK)
    STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, et 
al., Plaintiffs, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant. Civil Action 
No. 98-;1233 (CKK)
    DECLARATION OF JOSEPH E. STIGLITZ AND JASON FURMAN
    TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. QUALIFICATIONS--;1
II. PURPOSE--;2
III. INTRODUCTION--;2
IV. THE MODERN ECONOMIC THEORY OF COMPETITION AND MONOPOLY.--;6
A. Acquisition of a monopoly--;7
B. Potential for competition--;10
C. Consequences of monopoly--;12
D. Monopolies and innovation--;14
V. FACTS AND LEGAL CONCLUSIONS RELATING TO MICROSOFT--;16
A. Monopoly power--;16
B. Anticompetitive behavior--;17
C. Effectiveness of anticompetitive behavior in maintaining the 
monopoly--;19
VI. OUTLINE OF AN EFFECTIVE CONDUCT REMEDY--;20
A. Creating more choices for consumers--;22
B. Reducing the applications barrier to entry--;23
C. Preventing Microsoft from strengthening its operating system 
monopoly by bringing new products within its scope--;23
VII. ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT--;24
A. Creating more choices for consumers--;26
1. Ensuring that OEMs and potentially ISVs have the right to modify 
fundamental aspects of the computer experience in any way they 
choose--;27
2. Ensuring that OEMs and ISVs have adequate information and 
technical access to develop applications for, or even modifications 
to, Windows--;29
3. Ensuring that OEMs and ISVs are protected from retaliation by 
Microsoft for providing alternatives to consumers--;31
4. Ensuring that OEMs have financial incentives to make changes that 
benefit consumers--;32
B. Reducing the applications barrier to entry--;34

[[Page 28380]]

1. Middleware and the applications barrier to entry--;34
2. Microsoft Office and the applications barrier to entry--;37
C. Preventing Microsoft from strengthening its operating system 
monopoly by extending it to encompass additional products--;38
VIII. STEPS TO IMPROVE THE PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT: THE LITIGATING 
STATES'' ALTERNATIVE--;39
A. Fostering competition through OEMs and reducing the applications 
barrier to entry--;40
B. Internet Explorer browser open source and Java 
distribution--;41
C. Cross-platform porting of Office--;42
D. Mandatory disclosure to ensure interoperability--;42
IX. CONCLUSION--;43
    I. QUALIFICATIONS
    Our names are Joseph Stiglitz and Jason Furman. Dr. Stiglitz is 
a Professor at Columbia Business School, Columbia's Graduate School 
of Arts and Sciences (in the Department of Economics), and 
Columbia's School of International and Public Affairs. In 2001, Dr. 
Stiglitz was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences. In 
addition, Dr. Stiglitz serves as a Senior Director and Chairman of 
the Advisory Committee at Sebago Associates, Inc., an economic and 
public policy consulting firm.
    Dr. Stiglitz previously served as the World Bank's Chief 
Economist and Senior Vice President for Development Economics. 
Before joining the Bank, he was the Chairman of the President's 
Council of Economic Advisers. Dr. Stiglitz has also served as a 
professor of economics at Stanford, Princeton, Yale, and All Souls 
College, Oxford.
    As an academic, Dr. Stiglitz helped create a new branch of 
economics--;``The Economics of 
Information''--;which has received widespread application 
throughout economics. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Dr. 
Stiglitz helped revive interest in the economics of technical change 
and other factors that contribute to long-run increases in 
productivity and living standards. Dr. Stiglitz is also a leading 
scholar of competition policy.
    In 1979, the American Economic Association awarded Dr. Stiglitz 
its biennial John Bates Clark Award, given to the economist under 40 
who has made the most significant contributions to economics. His 
work has also been recognized through his election as a fellow to 
the National Academy of Sciences, the American Academy of Arts and 
Sciences, and the American Philosophical Society, as well as his 
election as a corresponding fellow of the British Academy. He has 
also been awarded several honorary doctorates.
    Jason Furman is a Lecturer in economics at Yale University. In 
addition, Mr. Furman is a Director at Sebago Associates. Mr. Furman 
previously served as Special Assistant to the President for Economic 
Policy at the White House, where his responsibilities included tax 
policy, the Federal budget, Social Security, anti-poverty programs, 
and other economic policy issues.
    II. PURPOSE
    This Declaration was commissioned by the Computer & 
Communications Industry Association (CCIA) as an independent 
analysis of the competitive effects of the Proposed Final Judgment. 
The views and opinions expressed in this Declaration are solely 
those of the authors based on their own detailed study of the 
relevant economic theory and court documents; they do not 
necessarily reflect the views and opinions of CCIA. In addition, the 
views and opinion expressed in this Declaration should not be 
attributed to any of the organizations with which the authors are or 
have previously been associated.
    III. INTRODUCTION
    Competition is the defining characteristic of a market economy. 
It provides the incentive to produce new products that consumers 
want, to improve efficiency and lower the costs of production, and 
to pass on these innovations in the form of lower prices for 
consumers. In a competitive market, a firm that does not act in the 
best interests of consumers will be punished and, ultimately, will 
fail. But when competition is imperfect--;or when it is 
nonexistent as in the limiting case of monopoly--;the incentives 
to undertake these beneficial actions may be attenuated. In fact, a 
firm may even face incentives to behave in ways which do not serve 
the interests of consumers or the economy more generally. Monopoly 
power may lead a firm to underinvest in innovation, misdirect its 
investments, or undertake other activities in order to stifle 
competition rather than to improve products. Costs of production may 
be excessive because the monopolist has insufficient incentives for 
efficiency, has incentives to undertake costly measures to deter 
competition, or undertakes measures to raise rivals'' costs. 
And consumers will face higher prices and fewer choices in the short 
run; in the long run, the losses to consumers may be even more 
severe.
    In a unanimous decision, the full Court of Appeals for the DC 
Circuit upheld the District Court finding that Microsoft was guilty 
of violating 2 of the Sherman Act through its illegal maintenance of 
a monopoly in the market for Intel-compatible personal computer (PC) 
operating systems.\1\ The Court of Appeals also affirmed numerous 
findings of fact concerning the consequences of this illegal 
monopolization for misdirecting innovation, raising rivals'' 
costs, and limiting consumer choice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34 (DC Cir. 
2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The desire to maintain this monopoly, even against potentially 
superior products, creates a powerful incentive for Microsoft to 
eliminate or weaken competition that could erode or even eliminate 
its monopoly. In the mid-1990s, the principal threat to Microsoft's 
Windows operating system came from the development of the Netscape 
browser and Java technologies,\2\ which allowed programmers to write 
applications to Netscape and Java, meaning that such programs would 
then work on any operating system that would run Netscape or lava. 
By reducing or even eliminating the cost of producing applications 
for different operating systems, these technological rivals reduced 
the barriers to entry for a new operating system and threatened, 
over the longer run, to erode Microsoft's monopoly in Intel-
compatible PC operating systems by allowing competitors to provide 
superior products at a lower cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\``The Java technologies include: (1) a 
programming language; (2) a set of programs written in that 
language, called the `Java class libraries,'' which 
expose APIs; (3) a compiler, which translates code written by a 
developer into `bytecode'; and (4) a Java Virtual 
Machine (`JVM'), which translates bytecode into 
instructions to the operating system.'' See 253 F.3d at 74, 
citing Findings of Fact 73, United States v. Microsoft 
Corp., 84 F. Supp. 2d 9, 29 (D.DC 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Microsoft's conduct has effectively eliminated the threat posed 
by Netscape and Java. Given ongoing rapid technological progress, it 
is impossible to predict with certainty where the next challenge to 
Microsoft Windows will come from. The experience in this area, 
however, suggests that it is likely to come from rivalry at the 
borders of operating systems, in particular from 
``middleware'' that makes it possible for programmers to 
write to the ``middleware'' rather than to the underlying 
operating system. One such example comes from the increasingly 
important area of multimedia: streaming media players. Whether the 
next challenge to Microsoft's operating systems monopoly comes from 
a multimedia package or another technology, Microsoft will continue 
to have the same incentives and ability to stifle competition as it 
displayed against Netscape and Java in the mid- 1990s.
    The principal goal of any remedy for Microsoft's illegal 
behavior in this case should be to foster competition and expand 
choices for consumers. The key to achieving this goal is changing 
Microsoft's incentives and taking steps to increase competition. A 
structural remedy, such as splitting up the company, would most 
directly alter incentives. Where such structural changes are not 
possible, the remedy should prohibit and regulate the conduct that 
Microsoft has used in the past and will have an incentive to use in 
the future to eliminate threats from ``middleware'' 
products that threaten to limit its monopoly power by usurping some, 
and perhaps eventually all, of the important functions of the 
Windows operating system.
    The Revised Proposed Final Judgment (PFJ) of November 6, 2001 
does not change Microsoft's incentives to undertake anticompetitive 
acts to stifle consumer choice by thwarting potentially superior 
products\3\) Furthermore, the PFJ provides few effective 
prohibitions against future anticompetitive conduct: It 
alternatively ratifies Microsoft's existing conduct, contains 
sufficient loopholes to allow Microsoft to circumvent the 
legislation, and suffers from toothless enforcement procedures that 
would allow Microsoft to reap the fruits of its monopoly for a 
significant, and potentially even indefinite, period. In our view, 
the PFJ would leave intact Microsoft's ability to maintain, and 
benefit from, its Windows operating system monopoly, while allowing

[[Page 28381]]

it to continue to limit choices for consumers and stifle innovation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\United States v. Microsoft Corp., Revised Proposed 
Final Judgment, in the U.S. District Court for D.C, November 6, 
2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The PFJ does not even accomplish the limited remedial goals 
articulated in the U.S. Department of Justice's Competitive Impact 
Statement (CIS).\4\ Specifically, in addition to its loopholes and 
its inadequate enforcement mechanism, the PFJ is entirely silent on 
several key findings of the Court of Appeals, including the 
commingling of applications and operating systems code, the 
pollution of Java, and the applications barrier to entry more 
broadly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\U.S. Department of Justice (November 15, 2001), 
Competitive Impact Statement in United States vs. Microsoft Corp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The PFJ should be rejected and replaced with a remedy that 
changes Microsoft's incentives to unfetter the market for 
competition. At a minimum, a remedy in this case needs to restrain 
Microsoft's conduct, by restricting the means through which 
Microsoft can illegally maintain and benefit from its monopoly.
    The goal of this Declaration is to analyze the PFJ. It does not 
propose a detailed alternative remedy. It is important to note, 
however, that the proposal by the litigating States, while 
imperfect, is clearly superior to the PFJ in all of these regards. 
We do not address more aggressive remedies--;such as structural 
changes to break up Microsoft or impose more extensive limitations 
on its intellectual property rights--;but we note that such 
broader measures may well be necessary and desirable in order to 
alter Microsoft's incentives for anti-competitive behavior.\5\ We 
are convinced, however, that the PFJ fails to meet the minimum 
requirement of an acceptable remedy--;that is, it is unlikely to 
substantially increase competition in the relevant market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\Restrictions on intellectual property rights have been 
used as a remedy in past antitrust cases, for example IBM's 1956 
tabulating machines case, in a manner that is both effective and 
largely without adverse effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The remainder of this Declaration contains five sections. First, 
it presents a brief discussion of the modem theory of competition, 
focusing on its relation to innovation. Second, it summarizes the 
relevant facts and legal conclusions relating to Microsoft. Third, 
it outlines what an effective remedy in this case should entail. 
Fourth, it examines the PFJ and highlights its deficiencies in 
comparison to this effective remedy. Finally, the paper concludes 
with a brief discussion of practical measures that could provide a 
more effective remedy.
    IV. THE MODERN ECONOMIC THEORY OF COMPETITION AND MONOPOLY
    This section presents a brief overview of the modem economic 
theory of competition and monopoly. The theory of competition has 
evolved rapidly in the last few decades, due in part to the natural 
evolution of economic thought and in part to the issues raised by 
the ``new economy'' (such as the importance of network 
effects and rapid innovation). Given the vast literature on the 
topic, this discussion is necessarily selective and focuses on the 
most relevant issues for Microsoft's monopoly of the market for 
operating systems for Intel-compatible PCs. This theoretical 
background motivates the conclusions about the PFJ.
    A. Acquisition of a monopoly
    The traditional view of monopoly is that in specific industries, 
like public utilities, increasing returns to scale create a 
situation in which luck or initial success will eventually lead to 
one firm that can maintain its monopoly by controlling an entire 
market and thus benefiting from the lower average costs of 
production that result from the larger scale of production. This 
aspect of the traditional view is still salient in the software 
market. Producing a software program has high fixed costs in the 
form of investments in research and development but, once this 
investment has been made, virtually no marginal cost from producing 
additional units. As a result, the larger the scale of production, 
the lower the average cost. By itself, these increasing returns to 
scale will provide a powerful force for consolidation.
    The modem view of monopoly has added an additional effect that 
can strengthen the advantages enjoyed by the lucky or initially 
successful firm: network effects.\6\ 6 Network effects arise when 
the desirability of a product depends not just on the 
characteristics of the product itself but also on how many other 
people are using it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\For an overall survey, see Michael Katz and Carl 
Shapiro (1994), ``Systems Competition and Network 
Effects.'' Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8:2, 93-;115. 
For a specific application to Microsoft, see Timothy Bresnahan 
(2001), ``The Economics of the Microsoft Case.'' Mimeo 
available at http://www.stanford.edu/tbres/Microsoft/The Economics 
of The Microsoft Case.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Network externalities may be direct: as a user of Microsoft 
Word, I benefit when many other people also use the program because 
it is easier to share Word files. Network externalities may also be 
indirect: I am more likely to purchase a computer and operating 
system if I know that more software choices are currently available 
(and will be available in the future) for this system. An operating 
system with a larger set of existing (and expected) compatible 
applications will be more desirable. This indirect network effect 
has been called the ``applications barrier to 
entry.''\7\ The main reason that consumers demand a 
particular operating system is its ability to run the applications 
that they want. In developing applications, Independent Software 
Vendors (ISVs) incur substantial sunk costs and thus face increasing 
returns to scale. This motivates ISVs to first write to the 
operating system with the largest installed base. Because 
``porting'' an application to a different operating system 
will result in substantial additional fixed costs, a firm will have 
less incentive to produce the application for operating systems with 
a smaller installed base, and may do so with a delay or forgo 
porting completely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\Franklin Fisher, ``Direct Testimony of Franklin 
Fisher'' in United States v. Microsoft Corp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The applications barrier to entry can skew competition for an 
extended period of time and ensure that any monopoly power, once 
established, will tend to persist. In choosing a PC and an operating 
system, consumers make a large fixed investment. In addition, 
because a considerable amount of learning is associated with the use 
of operating systems and associated applications, and because files 
created under one applications software program may not be easily or 
perfectly transferable to others, there are large costs associated 
with switching. As a result, consumers will evaluate, among other 
factors, the current existence of compatible applications and the 
likely number of future compatible applications.\8\ 8 The current 
number of compatible applications is likely to depend directly on 
the past and current market share of the operating system. A 
consumer's reasonable evaluation of the prospects for the continued 
support of his or her favorite applications and the development of 
new applications is also likely to be based on current market share. 
As a result, increased market share indirectly increases the 
desirability of an operating system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\Nicholas Economides (1996), ``The Economics of 
Networks.'' International Journal of Industrial Organization, 
14:2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Empirically, this applications barrier to entry is dramatic. At 
its peak in the mid-1990s, IBM's operating system, OS/2 Warp, had 10 
percent of the market for operating systems for Intel-compatible PCs 
and ran approximately 2,500 applications. In contrast, Windows 
supported over 70,000 applications.\9\ Establishing a new operating 
system that effectively competes head-to-head with Windows would 
require the hugely expensive task of attracting ISVs to port 
thousands or even tens of thousands of programs to the new operating 
system, a process with a substantial fixed cost and, in the absence 
of a large guaranteed market, little scope to benefit from economies 
of scale. Particularly important to the applications barrier to 
entry is the availability of applications providing key 
functionalities, such as office productivity. Microsoft's dominance 
in this area, and its choice about whether or not to port its 
Microsoft Office program to alternative operating systems, can add a 
new and even higher level to the applications barrier to entry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\Findings of Fact, 40 and 46, 
84 F. Supp. 2d at 20, 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With this barrier to entry, a monopoly once established may be 
hard to dislodge. Anticompetitive practices early in the competitive 
struggle can lead to a market dominance that can persist, even if 
the anticompetitive practices which gave rise to the monopoly 
position are subsequently prohibited. These hysteresis effects are 
reinforced by switching costs. Learning a language or a program 
interface may involve significant costs. Users must therefore be 
convinced that an alternative program is substantially superior if 
they are to be induced to incur the learning and other costs 
associated with switching to an alternative product. These 
``lock in'' effects make it more difficult to dislodge a 
firm that has established a dominant position, even when it is 
technically inferior to rivals.
    This perspective has two important policy implications. First, 
it is imperative to address anticompetitive practices as quickly as 
possible. Delay is not only costly, but it impedes the restoration 
of competition even in the longer run. Second, prohibiting the

[[Page 28382]]

practices that gave rise to the monopoly may not suffice to restore 
competition. Stronger conduct, and possibly structural, remedies may 
be required.
    B. Potential for competition
    In the most simplistic view, a monopoly once attained is 
permanent. Increasing returns to scale and network externalities 
make the monopolist impregnable--;any new entrant can be priced 
out of business by the monopolist--;which can then go back to 
charging the monopoly price for the product.
    In contrast to this simplistic static view, the economist Joseph 
Schumpeter presented a dynamic vision of technological change giving 
rise to a series of temporary monopolies. In his vision, the most 
successful firm in a winner-take-all contest would become a 
temporary monopolist, benefiting from the rents that this monopoly 
confers--;a process necessary to justify incurring the sunk 
costs in research and development required to obtain the monopoly in 
the first place. But, in the Schumpeterian vision, this monopoly 
would eventually be toppled by entry as a newly innovative entrant 
displaced the monopolist with a superior product, thus reaping the 
benefits of increasing returns to scale and network 
externalities.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\Joseph Schumpeter (1942 / 1984), Capitalism, 
Socialism and Democracy. Harper Collins, New York.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The real world likely lies somewhere between these two views. A 
monopoly is not a fixed part of the economic landscape. But the 
downfall of a monopoly is not inevitable. In fact, more recent 
economic research strongly indicates that Schumpeter's conclusion 
was wrong; when restraints on anticompetitive conduct are absent, a 
monopoly can take steps to ensure that it is likely to be 
perpetuated.\11\ These steps can suppress the overall level of 
innovation and have other high social costs.\12\ Significant network 
effects combined with switching costs, as discussed above, represent 
one way in which a firm can perpetuate its market power.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\See, among other references, Richard Gilbert and 
David Newbery (1980), ``Preemptive Patenting and the 
Persistence of Monopoly.'' American Economic Review 72(3), pp. 
514-;526 and Partha Dasgupta and Joseph Stiglitz (1980), 
``Uncertainty, Market Structure and the Speed of 
R&D,'' Bell Journal of Economics, 11 (1), pp. 1-;28.
    \12\Joseph Stiglitz (1987). ``Technological Change, 
Sunk Costs, and Competition.'' Brookings Papers on Economic 
Activity, 3, pp. 883-;937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Understanding this point is central to understanding what 
motivated the actions of Microsoft in promoting Internet Explorer 
and restraining Netscape and Java, and also to understanding the 
motivations of a conduct remedy to improve competition. Network 
externalities are not a ``d factor'' in the economic 
landscape. They depend, at least in part, on decisions by the 
monopolist. A monopolist has substantial resources at its disposal 
to strengthen barriers to entry and thus to maintain and strengthen 
its monopoly power. Exclusionary conduct by the monopoly can be used 
to prevent a reduction in the barriers to entry or even 
affirmatively to raise them even higher. Java and Netscape would 
have reduced the monopoly power of Windows by allowing a greater 
variety of programs to function on a greater variety of operating 
systems. The social benefits from such innovation were likely 
significant, but Microsoft would have experienced significant losses 
from the innovation through the erosion of its monopoly power.
    Similarly, this same point can provide the rationale for 
structural or conduct remedies that can potentially reduce barriers 
to entry and thus increase competition in part, or all, of the 
market. The fundamental idea is that Microsoft acted as it did 
because it was afraid that Netscape and Java would reduce the 
applications barrier to entry and thus undermine its operating 
systems monopoly. By preventing this anticompetitive behavior, and 
indeed promoting competition, a conduct remedy could have precisely 
the opposite effect, creating the conditions for the dynamic, 
innovative Schumpeterian competition that would otherwise be absent 
in this market.
    In understanding the monopoly in the operating systems market, 
and how it fits into the overall PC platform, it is useful to 
introduce some issues specific to this area. Timothy Bresnahan, a 
Professor of Economics at Stanford University and a former Deputy 
Assistant Attorney General and Chief Economist at the U.S. 
Department of Justice Antitrust Division, formulated the concept of 
``Divided Technical Leadership.''\13\ The concept 
is that although each aspect of the platform is dominated by a 
single company, different companies dominate different 
``layers'' of the platform: ``At one stage, all of 
IBM and Compaq (computer), Microsoft (OS), Intel (CPU), Netware 
(networking OS), WordPerfect and Lotus (near-universal applications) 
participated in technological leadership of the PC 
platform.''\14\ In a situation of divided technical 
leadership, according to Bresnahan, competition comes from two 
sources: ``(1) firms in one layer encouraging entry and epochal 
change in another layer and (2) rivalry at layer 
boundaries.''\15\ To the degree that divided technical 
leadership is absent, because for example Microsoft controls many of 
the layers (operating system, office applications, networking, 
browsers, etc.), competition will be restricted. Any measures to 
facilitate divided technical leadership, even if they leave the 
monopoly at any given layer intact, will facilitate competition and 
thereby benefit consumers in the form of greater innovation, more 
choices, and lower prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\Timothy Bresnahan and Shane Greenstein (1999), 
``Technological Competition and the Structure of the Computer 
Industry.'' Journal of Industrial Economics, 47(1): pp. 140 and 
Bresnahan (2001).
    \14\Bresnahan (2001), p. 5.
    \15\Bresnahan (2001), p. 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    C. Consequences of monopoly
    Traditional economic theory suggests that the principal 
consequence of a monopoly is to raise prices and restrict 
production. This combination has two consequences. First, higher 
prices allow the monopolist to capture some of the surplus 
previously enjoyed by consumers. Second, restricted production 
results in a deadweight loss for society, the so-called 
``Harberger triangle,'' to the extent that the value 
placed on the forgone consumption by consumers exceeds its cost to 
producers.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\Arnold Harberger (1954), ``Monopoly and Resource 
Allocation,'' AEA Papers and Proceedings, 44: 77-;87.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Over the last few decades, economists have substantially 
enhanced this traditional theory and explored other ways in which 
market power imposes social costs. The modem view is that when 
competition is imperfect, firms try to maintain and extend their 
market power by taking actions to restrict competition. firms is 
producing innovations In the world of perfect competition, the 
source of success for that benefit consumers and reduce prices. In 
the world of imperfect competition, an additional--;and perhaps 
paramount--;source of success is the effort to reap monopoly 
profits, capture rents, deter entry into the market, restrict 
competition, and raise rivals'' costs.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\Partha Dasgupta and Joseph Stiglitz (1998), 
``Potential Competition, Actual Competition and Economic 
Welfare.'' European Economic Review, 32: 569-;577. For an 
extended discussion and additional references see Joseph Stiglitz 
(1994), Whither Socialism, MIT Press, Cambridge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the new view, the social costs of monopolies go well 
beyond the ``Harberger triangles'' that result from higher 
prices and restricted output. In fact, even if the monopolist is not 
currently restricting output, the steps taken to maintain the 
monopoly will result in substantial economic inefficiencies and 
costs to society. These costs may be far larger than the monopoly 
profits and far larger than the Harberger triangles. These social 
losses reflect higher costs of production (both for the firm and its 
rival), limited or distorted investment in innovation, a restricted 
set of potentially inferior choices for consumers, and, in the long 
run, higher prices.
    D. Monopolies and innovation
    The information technology industry is characterized by a rapid 
rate of technological change. As the modem theory of competition and 
monopoly underscores, it is important to focus not just on the 
static issues that affect consumers today, but also on how the 
mixture of monopoly, competition, and the intellectual property 
regime affects the pace and direction of innovation.
    Schumpeter emphasized that monopolies would provide both the 
incentives and the means for innovation. According to Schumpeter, 
the fear of losing monopoly rents would drive a monopolist to 
continue innovating and these monopoly rents--;or the promise of 
further monopoly rents in the future--;would provide the 
financing for these innovations. Schumpeter's vision contains 
elements of truth: the threat of competition may induce monopolists 
to invest more in innovation than it otherwise might. But the pace 
of innovation may be even higher if the incumbent's monopoly power 
were curtailed. Monopoly power could lower the pace of innovation 
for four reasons.
    First, previous innovations are inputs into any subsequent 
innovation. Monopoly power can be thought of as increasing the cost 
of one of the central inputs into follow-on innovations. Standard 
economic theory

[[Page 28383]]

predicts that as the cost of inputs into any activity increases, the 
level of that activity falls.
    Second, with more substantial barriers to entry, the threat of 
Schumpeterian competition and therefore the incentives to innovate 
are diminished. In the extreme case, if a monopoly could ensure that 
there were no threat of competition, it would no longer have to 
innovate. A monopolist's anticompetitive actions to raise barriers 
to entry will reduce its future incentives to innovate, similarly 
measures that increase competition will increase the Schumpeterian 
incentive.
    Third, innovation itself may be misdirected in order to secure a 
monopoly by deterring entry and raising rivals'' costs. In 
operating systems, for example, the development of alternative 
proprietary standards and the construction of non-interoperable 
middleware are examples of innovations that could potentially 
strengthen monopoly power.
    Fourth, the incentives of a monopoly to innovate are 
limited.\18\ Since a monopolist produces less than the socially 
optimal output, the savings from a reduction in the cost of 
production are less than in a competitive market. Also, a 
monopolist's incentives to undertake research will not lead it to 
the socially efficient level. Rather, its concern is only how fast 
it must innovate in order to stave off the competition--;a level 
of innovation that may be markedly lower than socially optimal. 
Consider, for example, a simple patent race in which a monopoly 
incumbent can observe the position (at least partially) of potential 
rivals. The monopolist's incentive is to move out in front of the 
potential rivals by just enough to convince them that they cannot 
beat the monopolist. Given those beliefs, the rivals do not engage 
in research, and the monopolist can then slow down its research to a 
lower level (since it no longer faces a viable threat).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\Kenneth Arrow (1962), ``Economic Welfare and the 
Allocation of Resources for Invention.'' In The Rate and 
Direction of Inventive Activity, Princeton University Press, 
Princeton: pp. 609-;625.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In short, monopolization not only harms consumers by raising 
prices and reducing output in the short run, but may reduce 
innovation in the long run. These long-run harms, which are 
especially important in innovative industries, may substantially 
exceed the short-run costs to consumers.
    v. FACTS AND LEGAL CONCLUSION RELATING TO MICROSOFT
    In its decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District 
Court's overall judgment, albeit on a narrowed factual and legal 
basis. The Court of Appeals concluded that ``Microsoft violated 
2 of the Sherman Act by employing anticompetitive means 
to maintain a monopoly in the operating system market.'' 19 In 
addition, the Court of Appeals overturned the lower court's judgment 
that Microsoft violated 2 of the Sherman Act by 
attempting to monopolize the web browser market. The Court of 
Appeals remanded the decision on whether the tying of Internet 
Explorer to Windows violated 1 of the Sherman Act and 
indicated that tying should be evaluated under the rule of reason, 
rather than under a per se rule; the U.S. Department of Justice 
chose not pursue this issue further. The Court of Appeals also 
vacated the District Court's Final Judgment, in part because of the 
narrowed scope of the judgment on the conclusions of law.
    The current task in this case is to develop a remedy that 
addresses the central finding of the Court of Appeals: the 
monopolization of the operating systems market. This judgment was 
based on findings of fact and conclusions of law in three areas: 
Microsoft has monopoly power in the relevant market, Microsoft 
behaved anticompetitively, and Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior 
contributed to the maintenance of its monopoly. These are briefly 
discussed in turn.
    A. Monopoly power
    Monopoly power is the power to set prices without regard to 
competition. It can be inferred by the combination of market share 
in the relevant market and significant barriers to entry. The 
District Court found that Microsoft's share of the worldwide market 
for Intel- compatible PC operating systems exceeded 90 percent in 
every year of the 1990s and has risen to 19 253 F.3d at 46.
    more than 95 percent in recent years. Microsoft did not dispute 
these facts, but instead argued that the relevant market was broader 
and should include all platform software (e.g., servers, handheld 
devices, Macintosh computers, etc.). The Court of Appeals, however, 
rejected Microsoft's attempt to broaden the definition of the 
market, agreeing with the District Court that these other platforms 
were not ```reasonably interchangeable by consumers for 
the same purposes.'''\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\253 F.3d at 52, quoting United States v. E.I. du Pont 
de Nemours & Co., 351 U.S. 377, 395 (1956).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Court of Appeals affirmed the finding that 
Microsoft's dominant market share was likely to persist. This 
conclusion was based on the substantial barriers to entry, including 
increasing returns to scale and the applications barrier to entry 
discussed above. As a result, according to the Court of Appeals, 
``Because the applications barrier to entry protects a dominant 
operating system irrespective of quality, it gives Microsoft the 
power to stave off even superior new rivals. The barrier is thus a 
characteristic of the operating systems market, not of Microsoft's 
popularity.''\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\253 F.3d at 56.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    B. Anticompetitive behavior
    The Court of Appeals found numerous instances where Microsoft 
behaved anticompetitively through exclusionary conduct that harmed 
consumers, had an anticompetitive effect, and had either no 
``procompetitive justification'' or an insufficient 
``procompetitive justification'' to outweigh the harm. 
These actions, according to the Court of Appeals, had the intention 
and effect of preserving or increasing the applications barrier to 
entry. The Court of Appeals upheld most of the general categories of 
anticompetitive behavior originally found by 20 253 F.3d at 52, 
quoting United States v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 351 U.S. 
377, 395 (1956).
    the District Court, but overturned some of the District Court's 
specific findings in these areas. The key instances of this 
anticompetitive behavior found by the Court of Appeals include: 
Restrictive Licenses to Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs).\22\ 
Microsoft's Windows license placed restrictions on OEMs that limited 
their ability to change the look of the Windows desktop, the 
placement or removal of icons for browsers, or the initial boot 
sequence. The result was to increase the user share of Internet 
Explorer, not because of its merits, but because Microsoft limited 
the crucial OEM channel of distribution for Explorer's chief rival, 
Netscape. ï¿½ Integration of Internet Explorer into 
Windows.\23\ Microsoft discouraged OEMs from installing other 
browsers and deterred consumers from using them by not including 
Internet Explorer in the Add/Remove programs list for Windows 98 and 
commingling the operating system and browser code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\The Court of Appeals narrowed the scope of this 
anticompetitive behavior slightly, rejecting the District Court's 
finding that Microsoft's restrictions on alternative interfaces was 
anticompetitive, arguing that the ``marginal anticompetitive 
effect'' of Microsoft's license restrictions was outweighed by 
the alternative, the ``drastic alteration of Microsoft's 
copyrighted work.'' See 253 F.3d at 63.
    \23\The Court of Appeals, however, overruled the District 
Court in one instance, finding a sufficient justification for the 
fact that in certain situations Internet Explorer will override user 
defaults and launch, for example when alternative browsers do not 
provide the functionality required by Windows Update. See 253 F.3d 
at 67.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ï¿½Agreements with Internet Access Providers (IAPs).\24\ 
Microsoft engaged in exclusionary conduct to restrict the second 
main distribution channel for Netscape by offering IAPs, including 
America Online, the opportunity to be prominently featured in 
Windows in exchange for using the Internet Explorer browser 
exclusively. Dealings with ISVs and Apple.\25\ Microsoft further 
restricted additional outlets for Netscape by providing ISVs with 
preferential access to information about forthcoming releases of 
Windows 98 in exchange for their writing to Internet Explorer rather 
than Netscape. In addition, Microsoft negotiated with Apple to 
restrict the ability of Macintosh consumers to use Netscape in 
exchange for continuing to develop and support Microsoft Office for 
the Macintosh operating system. ï¿½ Polluting Java. The Court 
of Appeals also found that much of Microsoft's behavior vis- a-vis 
Java was an attempt to limit a threat to its operating system 
monopoly rather than benefit consumers. These illegal actions 
included entering into contracts requiring ISVs to write exclusively 
to Microsoft's Java Virtual Machine, misleading ISVs into thinking 
that Microsoft's Java tools were cross-platform compatible, and 
forcing Intel to terminate its work with Sun Microsystems on 
Java.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\The Court of Appeals found that several inducements 
offered by Microsoft to encourage IAPs to use Internet Explorer were 
not anticompetitive. See 253 F.3d at 68.
    \25\The Court of Appeals overturned the finding that 
Microsoft's deals with Internet Content Providers were 
anticompetitive. See 253 F.3d at 71.
    \26\See 253 F.3d at 74-;78. The Court of Appeals, 
however, found a sufficient procompetitive justification for 
Microsoft's development of its own version of a Java virtual 
machine. See id. at 74-;75.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 28384]]

    C. Effectiveness of anticompetitive behavior in maintaining the 
monopoly
    Finally, the Court of Appeals found that Microsoft's 
anticompetitive efforts to increase usage of Internet Explorer and 
Microsoft's Java Virtual Machine at the expense of Netscape and 
Sun's Java had the effect of increasing the applications barrier to 
entry and thus helping to maintain Microsoft's monopoly of the 
market for operating systems for Intel-compatible PCs. This finding 
is the crucial link to the economics of the case; a monopoly is 
neither automatically permanent nor automatically transient. Rather, 
its persistence depends, in part, on the barriers to entry which, in 
turn, depend on the actions of the monopolist and the regulation of 
the government. This finding is also crucial to the development of 
proposed remedies.
    Specifically, the Court of Appeals found that although neither 
Netscape nor Java posed an imminent threat of completely replacing 
all the functions of the operating system (and thus should be 
excluded from the definition of the relevant market for the test of 
monopoly power), they did pose a nascent threat to Microsoft's 
future dominance of the operating system market. Though not part of 
the ``operating systems market,'' they clearly affected 
the nature of competition in this market. Both Netscape and Java 
established Applications Programming Interfaces (APIs) that allowed 
developers to write some programs to Netscape and Java. These 
programs would then be able to run on any operating system that runs 
Netscape or Java. The result would be, at least in one segment of 
applications, a dramatic reduction in the applications barrier to 
entry. No longer would software developers have to incur additional 
costs to run on additional operating systems. As a result, Netscape 
and Java had the potential to act as a crucial level of 
``middleware'' between the operating system and the 
programs, and eventually could ``commoditize the underlying 
operating system,'' to use the memorable words of then-
Microsoft Chairman and CEO Bill Gates in an internal memo.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\United States v. Microsoft Corp., Government Exhibit 
20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Court of Appeals wrote:
    We may infer causation when exclusionary conduct is aimed at 
producers of nascent competitive technologies as well as when it is 
aimed at producers of established substitutes... the question in 
this case is not whether Java or Navigator would actually have 
developed into viable platform substitutes, but (1) whether as a 
general matter the exclusion of nascent threats is the type of 
conduct that is reasonably capable of contributing significantly to 
a defendant's continued monopoly power and (2) whether Java and 
Navigator reasonably constituted nascent threats at the time 
Microsoft engaged in the anticompetitive conduct at 
issue.''\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\253 F.3d at 79.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The court answered in the affirmative on both issues.
    VI. OUTLINE OF AN EFFECTIVE CONDUCT REMEDY
    The Court of Appeals was clear that the District Court has 
``broad discretion'' to fashion a remedy that is 
``tailored to fit the wrong creating the occasion for the 
remedy.''\29\ In the CIS, the Department of Justice 
appears to take a minimal view of the goals of a remedy, writing 
that it should ``eliminate Microsoft's illegal practices, 
prevent recurrence of the same or similar practices, and restore the 
competitive threat that middleware products posed prior to 
Microsoft's unlawful undertakings.''\30\ We believe that 
the PFJ fails even within the narrow terms that the Department of 
Justice set for itself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\253 F.3d at 105, 107.
    \30\CIS, p. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Court of Appeals appears to provide guidance for a broader 
remedy, quoting the Supreme Court in saying that the role of a 
remedies decree in an antitrust case is to ``unfetter a market 
from anticompetitive conduct'' and ``terminate the illegal 
monopoly, deny the defendant the fruits of its statutory violation, 
and ensure that there remain no practices likely to result in 
monopolization in the future.''\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\253 F.3d at 103, quoting Ford Motor Co. v. United 
States, 405 U.S. 562, 577 (1972).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One type of potential remedy, imposed by the District Court but 
vacated by the Court of Appeals, is structural. Such a structural 
remedy would involve breaking Microsoft into two or more companies 
with the goal of establishing a new set of incentives that foster 
competition. Although potentially disruptive in the short run, the 
goal of a structural remedy is to terminate the monopoly and create 
the structural conditions to prevent it from re-emerging, without 
requiring ongoing regulation or supervision by the court or the 
government. Such structural remedies are particularly suitable when 
there have been a wide variety of anticompetitive practices in the 
past and when changing market conditions (such as innovation) 
provide opportunities for new types of anticompetitive conduct in 
the future. Structural remedies have the further advantage of 
fundamentally altering incentives.
    A second type of potential remedy relates to conduct or 
licensing, seeking to prevent anticompetitive conduct and foster 
competition. A conduct remedy has the advantage of avoiding the 
dramatic and potentially deleterious changes associated with a 
structural remedy, but suffers from the defect that it is 
necessarily complicated and requires at least some involvement of 
the court and the government in regulating private enterprise. 
Ideally, a conduct remedy would also be structured to affect 
incentives: in particular, such a remedy should raise the costs of 
acting in an exclusionary manner.
    The remainder of this section discusses an outline of the 
elements of an effective conduct remedy that seeks to achieve three 
goals: creating more choices for consumers, reducing the 
applications barrier to entry, and preventing Microsoft from 
strengthening its operating systems monopoly by bringing new 
products within its scope. A. Creating more choices for consumers
    A conduct remedy should empower rival computer companies to 
modify their own versions of the computer experience to appeal to 
consumers. Not only will consumers benefit from the greater product 
choice, but entry and competition may be enhanced as consumers learn 
how to interact with a variety of interfaces. At a minimum, 
empowering OEMs and possibly ISVs to create more choices for 
consumers would involve: (1) the right to modify the desktop, the 
start menu, or other fundamental aspects of the computer experience 
so that OEMs can market PCs with alternative overall 
``looks'', different software packages (including 
supplementing, replacing, or removing Microsoft middleware), and to 
offer lower-priced options with reduced features; (2) adequate 
information and technical access to develop applications for, and 
even modifications to, functionalities included with Windows, which 
would allow ISVs to develop their own bundle of the Windows 
operating system plus applications (and/or minus Microsoft 
middleware) that could be marketed either to OEMs or directly to end 
users; (3) protection from retaliation by Microsoft for engaging in 
this conduct; and (4) financial incentives to make changes that 
benefit consumers.
    B. Reducing the applications barrier to entry
    The central goal of Microsoft's illegal conduct was to preserve 
and strengthen the applications barrier to entry so that the Windows 
operating system continued to be essential to desktop computing. An 
effective conduct remedy in this case should take steps to reduce 
the applications barrier to entry, by creating conditions conducive 
to more competition and by requiring Microsoft to undertake actions 
that would lower that barrier. Reducing the applications barrier to 
entry is consistent with the findings of the Court of Appeals and is 
central to an effective remedy in this case. Although the Court of 
Appeals rejected or remanded the District Court's findings of 
liability for tying and for monopolization of the browser market, 
both of these actions were central to the Court's finding of 
liability on the 2 Sherman Act violation for 
monopolizing the market for operating systems. The Court found that 
Microsoft used commingling of code and other exclusionary measures 
to increase the market share for Internet Explorer and reduce the 
distribution of Netscape and Java in order to strengthen the Windows 
monopoly.
    There are two specific aspects to reducing the applications 
barrier to entry:
    (1) encouraging competition in middleware in a manner that makes 
it easier for developers to write programs that run on a variety of 
operating systems, and (2) requiring Microsoft to port its dominant 
applications to alternative operating systems.
    C. Preventing Microsoft from strengthening its operating system 
monopoly by bringing new products within its scope
    Microsoft's ability to leverage its Windows monopoly to control 
other aspects of computing that then reinforce the Windows monopoly 
is a key part of its strategy of 23 anticompetitive conduct that 
formed the foundation for the Court o[ Appeals ruling. To deal with 
the anticompetitive practices that are ``likely to result in 
monopolization in the future'' requires a remedy that addresses 
not just areas of past misconduct, but emerging areas as well.

[[Page 28385]]

    The next section compares the actual agreement to these 
elements.
    VII. ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT
    The PFJ fails to fulfill even the minimal goals set by the CIS. 
It does not address many of the proven illegal practices, including 
commingling, polluting Java, and strengthening the applications 
barrier to entry more broadly. Furthermore, in our judgment the PFJ 
would not ``restore the competitive threat that middleware 
products posed prior to Microsoft's unlawful 
undertakings.''\32\ Nothing in the PFJ would be likely 
to resuscitate the conditions of greater ``divided technical 
leadership'' that prevailed in the mid-1990s when Netscape and 
Java both presented a serious threat to Microsoft, which Microsoft 
suppressed through anticompetitive actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\CIS, p. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The PFJ also falls dramatically short of all three elements of 
the guidelines that appear to have been endorsed by the Court of 
Appeals for the DC Circuit: it allows Microsoft's illegal monopoly 
in operating systems to continue and perhaps even be strengthened, 
it allows Microsoft to keep the fruits of its statutory violation, 
and it leaves intact all of the incentives--; and many of the 
means--;for Microsoft to maintain and extend its monopoly in the 
future, especially in the important emerging areas of web services, 
multimedia, and hand-held computing.
    The main impact of the PFJ is to codify much of Microsoft's 
existing conduct. Where the agreement limits Microsoft's conduct, 
there are often sufficient exceptions, loopholes, or alternative 
actions that Microsoft could undertake to make the initial conduct 
limits meaningless. Even where the limits are binding, Microsoft 
could still flout the conduct restrictions without fear of a timely 
enforcement mechanism. Because the Technical Committee\33\ is 
essentially advisory and only has expertise in software design, not 
law and marketing, the only enforcement of the PFJ is through a full 
legal proceeding--;which would provide enough time for Microsoft 
to inflict irreversible harm on competition. The time issues are 
especially important because in a market characterized by increasing 
returns to scale and network externalities, once a dominant position 
is established it will be hard to reverse, even if the original 
abusive practices are subsequently circumscribed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\The Technical Committee consists of three experts in 
``software design and programming''--; one appointed 
by Microsoft, one by the plaintiffs, and the third by these previous 
two. The Committee would have broad access to internal Microsoft 
documents, source code, etc. It would be responsible for reporting 
any violations of the PFJ to the plaintiffs. They would not, 
however, be able to rely on the work of the Technical Committee in 
Court proceedings. See PFJ, Section IV.B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The fundamental problem with the agreement is that it does not 
change the incentives that Microsoft faces. All of the illegal 
anticompetitive actions identified by the District Court and 
affirmed by the Court of Appeals were the result of rational 
decisions by Microsoft about how best to enhance its value by 
maintaining and expanding its monopoly. These same incentives will 
persist under the PFJ; given these incentives, it impossible to 
foresee--;let alone effectively prohibit--;the wide variety 
of potentially anticompetitive conduct that may result. Indeed, the 
reason that many economists have argued for the more drastic 
structural settlement (such splitting up Microsoft) is that such 
structural changes would alter incentives.\34\ Though the Court of 
Appeals has determined that such a remedy might be too drastic, the 
imperative in evaluating any remedy is to ascertain its impact on 
incentives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\See, for example, Robert Litan, Roger Noll, and 
William Nordhaus (2002), ``Comment of Robert E. Litan, Roger D. 
Noll, and William D. Nordhaus on the Revised Proposed Final 
Judgment.'' United States v. Microsoft Corp., Before the 
Department of Justice. The point is simple: now strategy with 
respect both to applications and the operating system is designed to 
maximize total profits, including the monopoly profits. With 
structural separation,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following analyzes the details of the PFJ by comparing it to 
the principles outlined in the previous section. Our discussion does 
not aim to be comprehensive, but instead to focus on areas that 
illustrate or represent important economic aspects of the PFJ. 
Although the enforcement aspects of the PFJ, in particular the 
powers of the Technical Committee, are essential to understanding 
the limitations of the agreement, we only briefly discuss these 
issues.
    A. Creating more choices for consumers
    In developing a remedy, the court is well aware of its technical 
shortcomings in deciding exactly what should or should not be 
included as part of an operating system today--;or in the 
future. Neither should these determinations be made solely by a 
monopolist. These choices should be made by consumers through the 
choices they have between different OEMs and ISVs. Stanford Law 
Professor Lawrence Lessig described this strategy as follows: 
``To use the market to police Microsoft's monopoly... by 
assuring that computer manufacturers and software vendors remain 
free to bundle and support non-Microsoft software without fear of 
punishment by Microsoft.''\35\ We agree with Professor Lessig 
that this should be among the goals of a final judgment and that the 
current agreement is woefully inadequate in meeting this objective. 
In our view, this is in fact a minimal objective that mitigates some 
of the harms to consumers from Microsoft's monopoly position but, by 
itself, would do little to reduce the applications barrier to entry 
or facilitate competition in the operating systems market itself. 
applications would be designed and marketed to maximize their own 
profits, with no regard to how this might affect the profitability 
of the operating system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\Lawrence Lessig (December 12, 2001). ``Testimony 
before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, a remedy that turns this overall strategy into a 
reality requires four different elements: (1)ensuring that OEMs and 
potentially ISVs have the right to modify the desktop, the start 
menu, or other fundamental aspects of the computer experience in any 
way they choose; (2) ensuring that OEMs and ISVs have adequate 
information and technical access to develop applications for, and 
even modifications to, Windows; (3) ensuring that they are protected 
from retaliation by Microsoft for providing alternatives to 
consumers; and (4) ensuring that they have financial incentives to 
make changes that benefit consumers. The PFJ is deficient in all 
four.
    1. Ensuring that OEMs and potentially ISVs have the right to 
modify fundamental aspects of the computer experience in any way 
they choose
    The PFJ codifies several new rights for OEMs to modify the 
desktop or the computer experience, some of which were already 
voluntarily announced by Microsoft on July 11,2001 and implemented 
with the release of Windows XP on October 25, 2001. Specifically, 
Section III.C of the PFJ prohibits Microsoft from restricting OEMs 
from ``Installing or displaying icons, shortcuts, or menu 
entries for, any Non-Microsoft Middleware... distributing or 
promoting Non- Microsoft Middleware by installing and displaying on 
the desktop shortcuts of any size or shape...'' among other 
actions.
    This new required latitude, however, is unduly limited in 
several respects: New flexibility is quite narrow. OEMs can only 
modify the initial boot screen to market IAPs to users, but cannot 
modify it to uninstall Microsoft middleware or to market middleware 
that competes with Microsoft middleware (Section III.C.5). Nothing 
in the PFJ would allow ISVs to acquire licenses to create their own 
bundles of Windows plus applications to market to consumers or OEMs, 
a measure that could enhance competition by bringing additional 
participants with substantial experience in software development 
into the market. While the benefits to consumers and competition of 
allowing ISVs to acquire such licenses are evident, Microsoft Would 
only be harmed to the extent that it reduces its monopoly power. 
There is no other convincing explanation for these restrictive trade 
practices.
    u It contains several limitations that limit the overall look of 
Non-Microsoft Middleware and pace of innovation. For example, the 
PFJ requires that the user interface on automatically launched Non-
Microsoft Middleware\36\ must be ``of similar size and shape to 
the user interface displayed by the corresponding Microsoft 
Middleware Product'', can only be launched when a similar 
Microsoft product would have been launched, and Microsoft can impose 
non-discriminatory bans on icons (Section III.C.3). In addition to 
the fact that these limitation are frivolous, asymmetric, and would 
seem to serve no purpose other than restricting competitive 
threats--;no such limitations apply to Microsoft--;they 
could also have a severe impact in limiting competition. 
Specifically, it allows Microsoft to control the pace of innovation 
in the computer experience, letting Microsoft delay the effective 
launch of a new type of product until it is ready to compete in that 
area. Thus

[[Page 28386]]

both competition and innovation may be impeded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\36 AS defined in Section VI.M.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    u It is unnecessarily delayed. Specifically, Section III.H gives 
Microsoft up to 12 months or the release of Service Pack 1 for 
Windows XP, whichever is sooner, to provide end users and OEMs a 
straightforward mechanism to remove icons, shortcuts, or menu 
entries for Microsoft Middleware Products or to allow OEMs or end 
users to designate alternative Non-Microsoft Middleware 
Products\37\ to be invoked by the Windows operating system in 
place of Microsoft Middleware Products.\38\ There is certainly no 
economic or legal justification for this delay and our understanding 
is that it is technically feasible to carry out these changes in a 
few weeks time, as demonstrated by Microsoft's July 11, 2001 
voluntary agreement to implement elements of this provision. As we 
have emphasized, there can be significant long-run consequences for 
competition from even short delays.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\As defined in Section VI.N.
    \38\As defined in Section VI.K.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    u Microsoft could encourage users to undo changes after 14 days. 
The value of the new contractual freedoms is limited by Microsoft's 
ability to encourage the user to undo all OEM changes after 14 days 
by allowing a user-initiated ``alteration of the OEM's 
configuration... 14 clays after the initial boot up of a new 
Personal Computer.'' (Section III.H.3) This provision, in 
effect, would allow Microsoft to present a message to end users 
(e.g., ``Press `yes'' to optimize your computer for 
multimedia'') that could bias choices toward Microsoft 
products, regardless of what the OEM had chosen. This provision 
could therefore greatly reduce the scope and value of the changes 
that OEMs make.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\This provision would allow Microsoft to run the 
``Desktop Cleanup Wizard'' that removes unused shortcuts 
from the desktop in a non-discriminatory manner. Nothing in our 
reading of the language of Section III.H.3, however, would limit the 
power of Microsoft to remove all user access to non-Microsoft 
middleware or restore access to Microsoft middleware.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2.Ensuring that OEMs ISVs have adequate information and 
technical access to develop applications for, or even modifications 
to, Windows
    The right to make modifications to Windows will only work 
effectively if OEMs and ISVs have the knowledge to exercise this 
right. Microsoft currently releases an enormous quantity of 
information on the Windows operating system and its APIs, through 
the Microsoft Developer Network (MSDN) and other means. Indeed, the 
indirect network externalities supporting the Windows monopoly 
provide a strong incentive for Microsoft to ensure that as many 
applications as possible run well on its system. But Microsoft also 
has an incentive to bolster its operating system monopoly by 
selectively withholding timely information to impede or delay the 
development of products that threaten to reduce the applications 
barrier to entry.\40\ In addition, Microsoft has also required 
anticompetitive actions in exchange for information, as in the 
``first wave'' agreements found illegal by the Court of 
Appeals.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\40 For example, the District Court found that 
Microsoft withheld the ``Remote Network Access'' API from 
Netscape for more than three crucial months in mid-1995. Findings of 
Fact, ï¿½ 90-;91, 84 F. Supp. 2d at 33.
    \41\These agreements, which were entered into between the 
Fall of 1997 and Spring of 1998 between Microsoft and several ISVs, 
provided preferential early access to Windows 98 and Windows NT 
betas and other technical information in exchange for using Internet 
Explorer as the default browser. See See 253 F.3d at 71-;72.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The PFJ requires disclosure of ``the APIs and related 
Documentation that are used by Microsoft Middleware to interoperate 
with a Windows Operating System Product'' (Section III.D) and 
specified Communications Protocols (Section III.E).
    These requirements, however, are deficient in several ways:
    u Windows APIs are not covered. In particular, the PFJ does not 
require the disclosure of the APIs used by Windows. Although 
Microsoft already has an incentive to disclose Windows APIs, there 
are circumstances where delay could be more profitable. The 
consequences of this omission are aggravated by the definition in 
Section VI.U: ``the software code that comprises a Windows 
Operating System Product shall be determined by Microsoft in its 
sole discretion.'' Thus, as middleware gets blended in the 
operating system, the scope of disclosures could be narrowed.
    u Internet Explorer and other middleware APIs are not covered. 
Furthermore, the agreement does not require the disclosure of the 
APIs used by Internet Explorer. Although the government did not 
prove that Microsoft was guilty of monopolizing the browser market, 
dominating this market played a key role in shoring up its monopoly 
in the operating systems market. As a result, requiring disclosure 
of the APIs for Internet Explorer and other middleware could play a 
role both in denying the fruits of that monopoly and reducing this 
barrier to entry in its operating systems market. . Definitions 
could limit disclosure even further. The scope of APIs required to 
be disclosed under the agreement could be potentially limited even 
further by the control Microsoft has over what is ``Microsoft 
Middleware'' and what is the ``Windows Operating System 
Product.''
    . Additional loopholes further limit disclosure and ability of 
non-Microsoft middleware to fully interoperate with Windows. Section 
III.J.1 provides a substantial loophole that exempts from the 
disclosure requirements anything that ``would compromise the 
security of a particular installation,... digital rights management, 
encryption or authorization systems...'' These are all very 
important technologies for Windows Media Player, Passport, the 
Internet Explorer browser, and any of the many programs that rely 
increasingly on security and encryption. In addition to giving 
Microsoft substantial discretion and blurring the disclosure 
requirements further, these exceptions would make it impossible for 
competitors to design middleware that fully interoperated with the 
Windows operating system, leaving certain features only accessible 
to Microsoft middleware.
    . Disclosures are not timely. The disclosures are not very 
timely, allowing Microsoft enough time to ensure that its 
products--;and products by favored OEMs and ISVs--; enjoy a 
substantial ``first to market'' benefit in taking 
advantage of the functionality of the operating system. Microsoft 
has up to 9-;12 months to disclose the APIs and communications 
protocols. In the case of a new version of the Windows Operating 
System Product, the PFJ bases the timing of the disclosure on the 
number of beta testers, effectively giving Microsoft substantial 
discretion over the timing of the required disclosures through its 
definition of the term ``beta tester'' and its control 
over their number. (Sections III.D and VI.R)
    . Microsoft could cripple rival products. The PFJ does nothing 
to prevent Microsoft from deliberately making changes in Windows 
with the sole or primary purpose of disabling or crippling 
competitors'' software products. 30
    3. Ensuring that OEMs and ISVs are protected from retaliation by 
Microsoft for providing alternatives to consumers The right to make 
alterations to the Windows desktop will only be effective if 
companies are protected from retaliation for exercising it. The PFJ 
provides some protection against retaliation (Section III.A) and 
requirements for uniform licensing and pricing for Microsoft Windows 
(Section III.B). The protections, however, are only partial, in that 
they omit several important behaviors, still leave substantial scope 
for Microsoft to retaliate, and contain a very large loophole.
    First, the prevention against retaliation only applies to a very 
specific set of actions that are specified in the PFJ, such as 
altering the icons on the desktop or promoting an IAP in the initial 
boot sequence. This rule does not apply to other actions by OEMs, 
such as the inclusion of third party software that does not fall 
under the definition of Non-Microsoft Middleware.
    Second, there may still be some scope for discrimination and 
retaliation. Section III.B.3 of the PFJ explicitly gives Microsoft 
the right to use ``market development allowances,'' for 
example to provide a pre-license rebate to selected OEMs on the 
basis of potentially ambiguous joint ventures. Although these 
incentives would have to be offered uniformly, there still could be 
some scope for defining them in an exclusionary manner. Furthermore, 
the relationships between Microsoft and computer companies are very 
complex and multifaceted, leaving substantial scope for retaliation 
in aspects not covered by the PFJ, including potentially the pricing 
of Microsoft Office and the server business.
    Finally, Section III.A allows Microsoft to terminate the 
relationship with an OEM without cause and within a brief span of 
time simply by delivering two notices of termination. With no ready 
substitutes for Windows available, this power would give Microsoft 
substantial leverage in its relationships with OEMs. Although the 
OEM would have the option of litigating Microsoft's denial of 
a Windows license, the text of Section III.A and the lack of 
``bright

[[Page 28387]]

line'' rules in the PFJ would make this litigation costly and 
uncertain--;and thus an imperfect means of protection against 
this threat. 4. Ensuring that OEMs have financial incentives to make 
changes that benefit consumers
    Even if the three previous conditions were met, they would be 
economically irrelevant if OEMs did not have financial incentives to 
take advantage of the new licensing freedoms. The production of PCs 
is a highly competitive industry with very low profit 
margins.\42\ PCs are virtually a commodity that can be priced 
based on a limited set of characteristics like processor speed and 
hard drive size. All of the steps allowed by the PFJ--;including 
installing non- Microsoft middleware or removing user access to 
Microsoft middleware--;entail higher costs for the OEMs both in 
the costs associated with the initial configuration of the system 
and in the added costs of end user support.\43\ In addition, 
OEMs may perceive that Microsoft would take additional steps to 
raise their costs through forms of retaliation either permitted by 
the PFJ or imperfectly banned. These costs may explain why, to our 
knowledge, no major computer manufacturer has yet taken Microsoft up 
on its July 11, 2001 offer to remove access to Microsoft middleware 
and replace it with non-Microsoft middleware.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\For example, the Washington Post recently noted that 
profit margins are in ``single digits.'' See Rob Pegoraro 
and Dina E1 Boghdady (January 20, 2002), ``Building Creativity 
Into the Box'' Washington Post.
    \43\In the Microsoft trial numerous industry witnesses 
testified to the user confusion and added support costs associated 
with having alternative browsers pre-installed on a computer. See 
253 F.3d at 71-;72.
    \44\Microsoft Press Release (July 11, 2001), 
``Microsoft Announces Greater OEM Flexibility for 
Windows.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result, the key source of greater competition and consumer 
choice in the computer experience--;OEMs--;would have 
limited economic basis for promoting such choice. In part this is 
because the value of some of the new freedoms obtained by the OEMs 
in the PFJ are limited
    by loopholes. For example, by allowing Microsoft to bar OEMs 
from marketing non-Microsoft middleware in the initial boot 
sequence, the PFJ removes one source of revenue and choice. In 
addition, allowing Microsoft to encourage users to 
``voluntarily'' revert to the Microsoft-preferred 
configuration of icons, the Desktop, and the Start Menu after 14 
days may reduce substantially the value of this screen ``real 
estate.'' As a result, the PFJ precludes some of the principal 
means by which OEMs could be remunerated for providing additional or 
alternative functionality desirable to consumers.
    The more fundamental problem is that OEMs continue to be 
required to license a version of Windows that includes middleware 
like Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, and Windows Messenger. 
By not requiring Microsoft to sell a cheaper, stripped-down version 
of the operating system--;excluding many of these added 
features--;the PFJ in effect would require OEMs to pay 
twice--;once for Microsoft's version of the product (as bundled 
into the price of Windows) and once for the alternative. Such 
bundling is a particularly invidious way of undermining competition. 
In effect, it implies that the marginal cost of any item in the 
bundle is zero, making competitive entry, even for a superior 
product, impossible. The fact that such entry has occurred is 
testimony to the superiority of the rival products--;consumers 
are willing to pay substantial amounts for the alternatives. In 
addition, forced bundling can have adverse effects on consumers, 
because it uses up memory and storage space, and there is always the 
possibility that the commingled code will interfere with the 
performance of other applications.
    In summary, under the PFJ, OEMs are not provided the rights, 
means, protections, or incentives to create alternative choices for 
consumers. As a result, the lynchpin of the PFJ's strategy for 
promoting competition would be greatly attenuated.
    B. Reducing the applications barrier to entry
    The applications barrier to entry was central to the Court of 
Appeals'' understanding of this case. It is the principal 
barrier to entry that protects Microsoft's overwhelming dominance of 
the market for operating systems for Intel-compatible PCs. 
Furthermore, the court found that Microsoft engaged in illegal acts 
to increase the applications barrier to entry, principally by 
suppressing Netscape and Java at the expense of Internet Explorer 
and Microsoft's version of Java. Thus, any remedy that is 
``tailored to fit the wrong creating the occasion for the 
remedy'' must necessarily take affirmative steps to reduce the 
applications barrier to entry and also prevent Microsoft from 
engaging in anticompetitive actions to increase this barrier. 
Unfortunately, the PFJ barely addresses this central issue.
    The following discusses two key aspects of the applications 
barrier to entry: the use of anticompetitive means to reduce the 
market share of rival middleware (and thus its potential to reduce 
the cost of porting applications to different operating systems) and 
the use of decisions about Microsoft Office to influence the 
prospects of rival operating systems. 1. Middleware and the 
applications barrier to entry
    The CIS states that under the PFJ, ``OEMs have the 
contractual and economic freedom to make decisions about 
distributing and supporting non-Microsoft software products that 
have the potential to weaken Microsoft's personal computer operating 
system monopoly without fear of coercion or retaliation by 
Microsoft.''\45\ Even if the PFJ did give OEMs this 
contractual and economic freedom without fear of retaliation, and 
the previous subsection expressed severe doubts on this point, it 
still would do little if anything to weaken Microsoft's operating 
system monopoly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\CIS, p. 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Enhancing competition by allowing OEMs and ISVs to provide 
consumers with a greater variety of choices, the subject of the 
previous subsection, is in some sense literally superficial. It 
involves the ability of firms in the computer industry to change the 
outer appearance of a computer and the way it is perceived and used 
by users, including the ability and ease of accessing programs that 
are included with the Windows operating system or added by the OEM 
or end user. The issues raised by the applications barrier to entry 
go deeper, to the underlying code in Windows. In particular, 
although the PFJ allows end users or OEMs to remove user access to 
Microsoft Middleware, it also allows Microsoft to leave in place all 
of the programming underlying this middleware. This code could still 
be accessed by other programs that write to the APIs exposed by the 
middleware.
    The Court of Appeals explicitly rejected Microsoft's explanation 
for commmingling the code of Windows 98 and Internet Explorer, 
concluding that it deterred users from installing Netscape, had no 
substantive purpose, and thus that ``such commingling has an 
anticompetitive effect.''\46\ Despite this strong 
finding, no provision in the PFJ addresses this issue.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\See 253 F.3d at 66.
    \47\The Court of Appeals rejected, per curiam, 
Microsoft's petition for a reheating on this point. Order (DC Cir. 
Aug. 2, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Netscape and Java represented a very rare challenge to 
Windows--;they offered the opportunity to develop middleware 
that would allow a wide range of applications to be costlessly 
transferred between different systems. It is difficult to imagine 
when, if ever, there will be a challenge of this magnitude again. 
Nonetheless, some existing middleware--;and future middleware 
that we may not even be able to forecast today--;will continue 
to present challenges to Windows. For example, there is still 
substantial competition in the market today for multimedia players, 
with Windows Media Player, RealNetworks RealOne player, and Apple's 
QuickTime, among others, all offering different versions of similar 
functionality.
    The treatment of middleware is crucial because the market for 
middleware, like the market for operating systems, is subject to 
substantial network externalities. These externalities mean that the 
desirability of a middleware package increases as the installed user 
base increases. As with operating systems, such externalities arise 
for direct reasons (e.g., users can share files in a particular 
media format) and indirect reasons (writing a program to different 
middleware, so the dominant middleware will have the most programs 
associated with it). With regard to indirect network effects, the 
key point is that the installed base is not the number of computers 
with shortcuts to the given middleware, but the number of computers 
with the underlying code permitting the middleware to be invoked by 
a call from another program. A programmer that wanted to develop, 
for example, an interactive TV program could still use Windows Media 
Player regardless of whether or not an OEM or end user had removed 
the icons or shortcuts that allow easy user access to this program.
    By providing no means for OEMs or end users to undo the 
commingling of code that ties

[[Page 28388]]

    Microsoft middleware to the operating system, the PFJ ensures 
that Microsoft middleware will have an installed base, in the 
relevant sense, of nearly the entire PC market. As a result, 
programmers will find it cheaper to write to Microsoft middleware 
rather than to rival programs. In this case, ubiquity could trump 
quality--;because the size of a middleware's installed base 
could be more important than the quality of the middleware program. 
Microsoft middleware thus increases the applications barrier to 
entry in the same manner that promoting Internet Explorer and 
restricting the distribution of Netscape do. By allowing Microsoft 
to continue to commingle the code for middleware and its operating 
system, and preventing OEMs or end users from making real choices, 
the PFJ contributes to Microsoft's ability to restrict the market 
share of its rivals in neighboring ``layers'' to the 
operating system, reducing the main form of potential future 
competition at ``layer boundaries.''
    2. Microsoft Office and the applications barrier to entry
    As noted above, in the mid-1990s, Microsoft Windows was 
compatible with more than twenty times as many programs as IBM's OS/
2 Warp. This offers a dramatic example of the applications barrier 
to entry. One crucial feature of Microsoft is that in addition to 
producing the Windows operating system, it is also a leader in many 
other applications. Network externalities work here to help create 
and maintain market dominance. Thus, for a rival operating system to 
succeed it would need not only to persuade ``neutral'' 
software companies to write to it, but also persuade Microsoft 
itself to port some of its leading applications to the operating 
system. To the degree that Microsoft produces leading or essential 
applications, they can use their refusal to port these applications 
to reinforce their Windows monopoly.
    One application, in particular, is especially important to 
users: Microsoft Office and its associated programs, including Word 
(for word processing), Outlook (for e-mail and scheduling), Excel 
(for spreadsheets), and PowerPoint (for presentations). Indeed, 
Microsoft Office has about 95 percent of the market for business 
productivity suites. 48
    The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's finding that 
the desire by Apple to ensure that Microsoft continued to maintain 
and update Mac Office was central to its motivation to enter into an 
illegal, anticompetitive deal with Microsoft to suppress Netscape 
and promote Internet Explorer. In addition, Microsoft does not 
currently have a version of Office that operates on Linux, the 
primary alternative to Windows in the PC operating system market. 
Withholding or simply threatening to withhold Microsoft Office from 
other operating systems is 48 Richard Poynder (October 1, 2001). 
``The Open Source Movement.'' Information Today, 9:18. a 
powerful way in which Microsoft can use anticompetitive means to 
reduce the desirability of rivals while also extracting concessions 
or exchanges that help support the Windows monopoly of PC operating 
systems.
    The PFJ, however, does not address any issues relating to the 
pricing, distribution, or porting of Microsoft Office. This 
considerable loophole has been used by Microsoft in the past. In the 
future, Microsoft will have the same incentives to use this loophole 
again. In addition, it may be necessary to examine additional 
Microsoft applications that can be used to reinforce the Windows 
monopoly. Given the difficulty of undoing a monopoly of this sort, 
once established, it is particularly appropriate to reach beyond 
remedies that are narrowly circumscribed.
    C. Preventing Microsoft from strengthening its operating system 
monopoly by extending it to encompass additional products
    The Court is charged with fashioning a remedy that 
``ensure[s] that there remain no practices likely to result in 
monopolization in the future.'' Some of the most important 
newly emerging areas are multimedia, networking, web services, and 
hand-held computing. Microsoft is already making substantial 
investments in these areas with its .NET strategy, Microsoft 
Passport, MSN, Windows Messenger, Windows Media Player, and the 
Pocket PC operating system.
    The recently released Windows XP is characterized by substantial 
integration between all of these features; indeed the seamless 
integration is one of Microsoft's chief selling points for Windows 
XP. Microsoft has marketed Windows XP (standing for 
``experience'') on the basis of its seamless integration 
between the Internet, multimedia, and the computer. For example, on 
the day it was released, a Microsoft press release announced, 
``Windows XP Home Edition is designed for individuals or 
families and includes experiences for digital photos, music and 
video, home networking, and communications.''\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\Microsoft Press Release, ``Windows XP is 
Here!'' 10/15/01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Like Internet Explorer, these new areas present new 
opportunities for Microsoft to leverage its monopoly in the 
operating system to dominate other markets. In addition, Microsoft 
could use its strong or dominant position in these new markets to 
erect new barriers to entry that prevent potential competitors from 
offering products and services with part or all of the functionality 
provided by Windows. For example, if Passport is successful then a 
rival operating system would not just need to persuade other 
developers to write for it, but would also need to develop its own 
version of Passport and convince numerous e-commerce sites to use 
it. If the rival operating system failed in any of these steps, its 
attempts to establish itself could be seriously curtailed. The PFJ, 
however, does not address any aspects of these important emerging 
barriers to entry.
    VIII. STEPS TO IMPROVE THE PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT: THE 
LITIGATING STATES'' ALTERNATIVE
    The goal of this Declaration is to explain why we believe that 
the PFJ is deficient and why the Court should exercise its 
discretion to fashion a remedy in this case that would promote 
competition and benefit consumers. We do not propose an alternative 
remedy or provide an exhaustive analysis of any other proposals. Our 
analysis of the shortcomings of the PFJ, however, can be illustrated 
and strengthened by a selective comparison of some of the provisions 
in the PFJ with the proposal transmitted to the court by the nine 
litigating States and the District of Columbia on December 7, 
2001.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\United States v. Microsoft Corp., ``Plaintiff 
Litigating States'' Remedial Proposals,'' in the U.S. 
District Court for D.C, December 7, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many of the issues in the ``Plaintiff Litigating 
States'' Remedial Proposals'' are technical and involve 
loopholes, some of which were discussed above including stronger 
anti-retaliation provisions and a broader definition of middleware 
that could not be manipulated by Microsoft. In addition, this 
proposed remedy makes an important change in enforcement: it 
proposes a Special Master, rather than requiring new legal 
proceedings to enforce the judgment. None of these important issues 
are discussed here. Instead, we focus on selected areas in which the 
litigating States'' proposal illustrates some of the principal 
economic points identified in the preceding analysis.
    A. Fostering competition through OEMs and reducing the 
applications barrier to entry
    The litigating States proposal would require Microsoft to 
license a cheaper version of Windows that does not include 
commingled code from added middleware.\51\ In addition, the 
proposal would require Microsoft to continue to license older 
versions of its operating system without raising its prices. This 
would have two effects. First, it would more effectively promote 
competition and consumer choice by allowing OEMs to ship computers 
with a wide range of alternative middleware, thereby allowing 
consumers to choose between different versions or
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\The Court of Appeals overturned the District Court, 
finding that Microsoft could not be held liable for the fact that in 
certain situations, like updating Windows or accessing help files, 
Internet Explorer overrides the user's default browser settings and 
opens automatically. This implies that the complete removal of HTML-
reading software is impossible. But Windows could be shipped with, 
for example, a stripped-down browser that performs essential system 
functions. Most of the functionality of Internet Explorer, however, 
is not necessary for the examples Microsoft invoked. This is 
analogous to the way in which Windows is shipped with a stripped-
down text editor, Notepad, but not with a full-fledged word 
processor. different price-feature combinations. The lack of 
financial incentives for OEMs to take advantage of the more 
liberalized licensing rules is one of the principal deficiencies in 
the PFJ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, such a provision would provide Microsoft with better 
incentives; only if it produced an operating system which performed 
substantially better would it be able to sell its new releases. It 
would at least attenuate its ability to use new releases as a way of 
extending its market power. Some have advocated even stronger 
measures to ensure Microsoft faces pro- consumer, pro-competition 
incentives, including requiring Microsoft to release all of its 
Windows source code and requiring the free distribution of its 
operating system after 3 to 5 years. Second, this provision would 
directly address the Court of Appeals finding that Microsoft's 
commingling of code was anticompetitive. By

[[Page 28389]]

disentangling the middleware from the operating system, this 
proposal would allow greater competition in middleware--;and 
thus ultimately in operating systems--;by reducing the network 
externalities that benefit Microsoft middleware at the expense of 
potentially superior products.
    B. Internet Explorer browser open source and Java distribution
    Two of the fruits of Microsoft's monopolization of the operating 
systems market are the dominance of the Internet Explorer browser 
and the destruction of Java as a viable competitor.
    The anticompetitive measures that helped achieve these goals 
protected a crucial ``chink in the armor'' of the Windows 
operating system. The PFJ does nothing to ``deny the defendant 
the fruits of its statutory violation.''\52\ 
Furthermore, it does not enhance the ability of competitors to 
interoperate with Internet Explorer because it includes no 
disclosure requirement for the Internet Explorer APIs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\253 F.3d at 103, quoting United States v. United Shoe 
Mach. Corp., 391 U.S. 244, 250 (1968).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The litigating States propose to remedy these deficiencies by 
requiring Microsoft to publish the source code and APIs for Internet 
Explorer and freely license them to competitors. In addition, their 
proposal would require Microsoft to distribute a Sun-compatible 
version of Java Virtual Machine with all future operating systems. 
The result would be to decrease the applications barrier to entry 
and promote competition.
    C. Cross-platform porting of Office
    As discussed in the previous section, Microsoft Office is one of 
the most crucial applications for many users. The existence of this 
application for a particular operating system is one key factor in 
the demand for the operating system. The litigating States'' 
proposal would remove the ability of Microsoft to either threaten to 
withhold Office or actually withhold Office by requiring Microsoft 
to continue to port Office to Macintosh. In addition, the proposal 
would require Microsoft to auction off licenses to ISVs that would 
provide them with the entire source code and documentation for 
Office in order for them to port the product to alternative 
operating systems. Although we draw no conclusions about the 
particular rules proposed by the litigating States, this proposal 
would clearly reduce Microsoft's ability to deliberately raise the 
applications barrier to entry.
    D. Mandatory disclosure to ensure interoperability
    The PFJ requires some disclosure to ensure that Microsoft is not 
able to withhold certain information to illegally benefit Microsoft 
Middleware at the expense of Non-Microsoft Middleware. The 
disclosures are limited in scope and timing. The litigating 
States'' proposal is substantially broader.
    Of particular importance, the litigating States'' proposal 
recognizes that ``nascent threats to Microsoft's monopoly 
operating system currently exist beyond the middleware platform 
resident on the same computer'' and thus the States'' 
proposal requires timely disclosure of technical information to 
facilitate ``interoperability with respect to other 
technologies that could provide a significant competitive platform, 
including network servers, web servers, and hand- held 
devices.''\53\ In doing this, the proposal would reduce 
the ability of Microsoft to use its dominant position in operating 
systems to eliminate emerging threats at the boundary of this 
``layer'' of computing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\Litigating States, pp. 10-;11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IX. CONCLUSION
    The Revised Proposed Final Judgment agreed to by the U.S. 
Department of Justice, the Attorneys General of nine States, and 
Microsoft Corporation is critically deficient. The overall aims of 
the PFJ are laudable--;to increase competition and reduce 
Microsoft's ability to maintain its monopoly at the expense of 
consumers. But the PFJ will not succeed in achieving these goals. It 
does not change any of the incentives faced by Microsoft to 
undertake anticompetitive actions. It restrains these 
anticompetitive actions only with highly specific and exception-
ridden conduct requirements. And it has an insufficient enforcement 
mechanism.
    The interest of consumers in a greater range of choices, lower 
prices, and greater innovation would be served by rejecting the PFJ 
and replacing it with a more effective conduct remedy. A remedy for 
this case should recognize that the monopoly power created by 
Microsoft's past anticompetitive, illegal practices is likely to 
persist, and that it will therefore be likely to continue to enjoy 
the fruits of its illegal behavior, unless there are far stronger 
remedies than those in the PFJ. The new remedy should change 
Microsoft's incentives. It should restrict Microsoft's ability to 
repeat its past, or develop new, anticompetitive practices. It 
should provide OEMs and ISVs with the means and incentives to 
stimulate genuine competition in the provision of platforms. And it 
should take whatever steps are possible to reduce the applications 
barrier to entry so that there is greater scope for genuine 
competition in the market for PC operating systems.
    I, Joseph E. Stiglitz, declare under penalty of perjury that the 
foregoing declaration is true and correct. Executed on January 28, 
2002.
    E. Stiglitz
    I, Jason Furman, declare under penalty of perjury that the 
foregoing declaration is true and correct. Executed on January 28, 
2002.
    Jason Furman
    Joseph E. Stiglitz
    Columbia University
    Uris Hall Room 814
    New York, NY 10027
    212-;854-;0671
    [email protected]
    Jason Furman
    Yale University
    28 Hillhouse Ave. Rm 311
    New Haven, CT 06511
    203-;432-;3054
    [email protected]
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF 
COLUMBIA, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 
98-;1232 (CKK) MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant. ) ) )
    STATE OF NEW YORK, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 
98-;1233 (CKK) MICROSOFT CORPORATION, ) Defendant. ) )
    DECLARATION OF EDWARD ROEDER
    Edward Roeder declares under penalty of perjury as follows:
    I. INTRODUCTION
    1. I am a Washington journalist, author, lecturer, and editor, 
expert on the U.S. Congress, elections and efforts to influence the 
U.S. government. My byline has appeared in most major U.S. 
newspapers, many top magazines, and on all major wires and networks. 
I have written, edited, produced and reported on money in politics, 
Congressional ethics and the American political economy for more 
than three decades. My experience includes work as a Senate 
subcommittee counsel, House select committee chief investigator, 
United Press International editor, publisher, White House 
speechwriter, government aide at level GS-15, freelance reporter and 
publisher. I founded Sunshine Press Services, Inc., a Washington 
news service and publishing house specializing in ``Casting 
Light on Money and Politics.'' Sunshine has developed 
References to Use,
    Not Just Peruse TM, computer-based reference works on U.S. 
politics. As National Political/Finance
    Editor for United Press International, I produced the nation's 
first weekly state-by-state computer- generated reports on federal 
election financing. In 1974, I became the first freelance 
correspondent fully accredited to U.S. House & Senate Press 
Galleries. As a freelance print and broadcast reporter, I 
specialized in covering elections and election financing. In Roeder 
v. FEC, I successfully sued Federal Election Commission under the 
federal Freedom of Information Act, forcing a reduction in fees for 
records and release of computerized data.
    My experience includes lecturing about covering influences on 
government at the graduate schools of journalism at Columbia, 
Northwestern (Medill), American, Maryland and other universities, 
and at the Hastings Center, the Heritage Foundation, and many other 
forums, and testifying before U.S. House and Senate committees. I 
also taught a public affairs course, Shadow Government in the 
Sunshine State, for three terms at Florida State University. I have 
appeared on ABC's Nightline, the CBS Evening News, World News 
Tonight (ABC), NBC Nightly News, All Things Considered (NPR), John 
McLaughlin, and many other broadcast outlets.
    My reference publications include PACs Americana, the 1,150-page 
authoritative reference on political action committees and their 
interests, Congress On Disk TM, the pioneer diskette publication on 
politics, PAC-Track TM, covering all transactions by political 
action committees and party committees, FatCat-Track TM, covering 
``soft money'' and all contributions of $200-and-up from 
individuals to any federal party, campaign or PAC, and Ready Money 
Reports TM, comparing relative financial standings of each federal 
campaign. A partial list of news clients is attached as Appendix B.

[[Page 28390]]

    2. I was commissioned by the Computer & Communications 
Industry Association to conduct a review of publicly available 
documents, news reports, and commentary regarding Microsoft's 
lobbying and political contributions since the United States 
Department of Justice and 19 States filed suit against Microsoft in 
1998.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\I am aware that Microsoft has undertaken an effort to 
use the Court discovery process to build a political case against 
its competitors. The relevancy of Microsoft's strategy will have to 
be determined by the Court since Microsoft--;and not its 
competitors--;have been found to be liable under the antitrust 
laws. I took input and advice from a broad range of sources in 
conducting this research, including CCIA and its members. This 
research is nonetheless based on the extraordinary public record of 
Microsoft's political activities during the timeframe of this case. 
I have also undertaken extensive original review of the records of 
the Federal Election Commission regarding election finance. These 
records covering all election cycles since 1970-;80 have been 
available in computerized format since the court-ordered settlement 
of Roeder v. FEC, a Freedom of Information lawsuit I filed in this 
very courthouse two decades ago.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. My review of the available documents has led me to conclude 
that over the past five years Microsoft has engaged in a 
``pattern and practice'' of political influence peddling 
in many ways unprecedented in modem political history. \2\ What 
makes Microsoft's lobbying efforts so unique is not necessarily the 
size (i.e. level of political contributions) but the scope of its 
efforts and the speed at which Microsoft went from having almost no 
political presence in Washington DC to having one of the largest and 
most sophisticated political operations in history.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\``Microsoft Targets Funding for Antitrust 
Office.'' Dan Morgan and Juliet Eilperin. Washington Post 
October 15, 1999. ``Pro-Microsoft lobbying to limit antitrust 
funding irks top lawmakers.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. By ``scope'' I am referring to the breadth of 
Microsoft's efforts. Microsoft has not merely established one of the 
largest Political Action Committees, or leapt to the top of the 
corporate contributor list in ``soft money,'' unregulated 
corporate contributions. Over the past five years Microsoft has also 
assembled a large lobbying office and retained dozens of high-
powered consultants; Microsoft has created numerous 
``front'' groups and has contributed heavily to a variety 
of think tanks and other organizations willing to espouse 
Microsoft's view of antitrust policy and this case; and Microsoft 
has created a variety of grassroots capabilities that appear to be 
directed at state-level government.
    5. Two key factors indicate that Microsoft's lobbying efforts 
were designed and directed to try to minimize the impact of its 
lawsuit and try to achieve a result in the political process that it 
is Wall Street Journal October 15, 1999. ``Microsoft Paid For 
Ads Against DoJ Case.'' Madeleine Acey. 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 Seattle 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 Lobbying 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. ``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 lobbying to limit 
antitrust funding irks top lawmakers.'' The Wall Street Journal 
October 15, 1999.
    ``Microsoft Paid For Ads Against DoJ Case.'' Madeleine 
Acey. 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. 
apparent it could not achieve in the legal process. First, 
Microsoft's efforts are new. Their onset coincides with the time the 
government sued Microsoft and they have continued and escalated ever 
since. Second, Microsoft's efforts are completely out of proportion 
to the rest of the high- technology industry. There is not one other 
example of a software, computer hardware, or Internet firm that 
comes anywhere near Microsoft's level of campaign contributions.
    6. I am not a lawyer, an expert on antitrust or an expert on the 
Tunney Act. My substantive views of of the Proposed Final Judgment 
are based primarily on the analysis of Nobel economist Joseph 
Stiglitz, whose declaration also supports the CCIA submission.
    7. The Tunney Act was enacted after the ITT scandal during the 
Watergate affair. As the court is aware, Watergate spurred a number 
of political reforms requiring ``sunshine'' on the 
political activities of special interests, in particular. But the 
Tunney Act was also enacted during a different political era, when 
political influence peddling was far less sophisticated than it has 
become after a quarter-century of efforts to circumvent the 
``reforms'' of the 1970s. By necessity, political 
influence peddling is no longer necessarily marked by a single 
``transaction'' or a single ``meeting,''
    or even an overt ``quid pro quo.'' In fact, one of the 
effects of the modem reforms has been to legalize many 
activities--;especially the transfer of funds from corporate to 
political coffers--;that had long been illegal under laws in 
effect since 1907 or 1934. Lobbying today is marked by 
incrementalism, where there may not be any single meeting, or any 
single contribution, or any single agreement. Rather, over time, 
what may develop is an ``understanding'' of the respective 
parties'' interests, objectives, and desired outcomes. Instead 
of corruptly influencing politicians to buy a discreet government 
decision, the money exerts far broader influence over appointments, 
policy frameworks or positions, and ultimately, decisions. Much of 
it may be legal, but it's far more corrupting than simple bribery.
    The simple matter of paying off a corrupt politician to obtain a 
favorable government decision is certainly offensive and unfair to 
the voters and those who are disadvantaged by the decision. Yet such 
petty or grand corruption, if isolated, does not seriously threaten 
the American system. What Microsoft has accomplished over the past 
half decade, however, presents a far darker prospect.
    By pouring money into America's institutions of political 
pluralism, rewarding those organizations and individuals that do its 
bidding and denying or limiting funding to its opponents, Microsoft 
has in some ways corrupted American political discourse itself. 
Newspapers that have run an editorial or opinion article sympathetic 
to a Microsoft position, reporters who have interviewed a professor, 
politician, or pundit about this antitrust action, and anyone who 
has hosted or observed public discourse on the subject must now 
wonder: Were the views expressed independent and sincere, or were 
they purchased by an unseen hand, smothering the American 
marketplace of ideas? As is detailed below, Microsoft's efforts to 
subvert democratic institutions such as political campaigns and 
debates, party organizations, news outlets, think tanks and 
government offices have been so vast as to be a new phenomenon, 
unenvisioned and unaddressed by existing political mechanisms 
intended to check the influence of special interests. Limited 
campaign contributions can serve the purpose of encouraging, 
facilitating, extending and opening political discussion.
    But political money in such vast amounts is a substitute for 
politics, not a means of undertaking political action.
    While the modem-day political pressure brought to bear by 
Microsoft in the last decade may not be precisely the same as that 
undertaken by ITT in the 70's, it is no less objectionable to the 
Court's charge of acting on behalf of the ``public 
interest.''

[[Page 28391]]

    8. Based on my review of the public record and the declaration 
provided by Dr. Stiglitz, it is apparent that the Department of 
Justice undertook a major ``change in policy'' at a 
critical moment this past fall. My belief--;again based largely 
on Dr. Stiglitz'' analysis and substantiated by a wide array of 
antitrust experts and scholars--;is that the Proposed Final 
Judgment cannot be reconciled with the government's extensive court 
victory. The public record suggests a Microsoft strategy that 
appears to defeats in the legal process, but which focuses on 
winning an acceptable outcome through the political process. It 
appears to be working. Indeed, if it weren't working, such vast 
expenditures might give rise to a shareholder suit for breach of 
fiduciary duty. If Microsoft's money has had the desired effect of 
inducing the U.S. government to throw in the towel on the biggest 
antitrust suit in history, such a suit could be easily defended. But 
to argue that Microsoft had no such intent is tantamount to 
suggesting that its corporate spending it in the control of 
squandering fools.
    9. I have also reviewed Microsoft's lobbying disclosures filed 
before the court as part of the Tunney Act. Again, while I am not a 
lawyer, my review of public documents, press reports and the plain 
language of the statute leads me to believe that disclosures made to 
the court can not possibly be reconciled with Microsoft's lobbying 
activities surrounding both this case and this settlement.
    10. Various press reports indicate that Microsoft is trying to 
convince the court and the public that the litigating states have 
been ``put up to this'' (i.e. continuing to litigate 
through the remedy phase) by Microsoft's competitors, and therefore 
cannot be acting in the public interest. My review of public 
documents suggests this theory is backwards and should be 
particularly alarming to the Court. The far more likely scenario, 
into which the Court must inquire, is whether the Department of 
Justice has executed Administration policy in response to the 
unprecedented campaign to influence the new Administration's 
antitrust policy generally, and as antitrust policy applies to the 
high-technology sector and Microsoft, in particular.
    11. In fact, with the benefit of hindsight, various Justice 
Department actions make perfect sense in the context of my research. 
The Department went to great lengths to create the appearance they 
were going to be ``tough'' with Microsoft, beginning with 
enlisting President Bush's renowned litigator, Phillip Beck. What 
actually occurred, however, is they systematically appear to have 
given away their hard-fought court victory. First, the Department 
unilaterally abandoned its pursuit of structural relief, and 
informed the court it would not seek a review of the Sherman Act 
Section tying claim on remand. Then the Department suggested it 
would base its remedy on the interim conduct remedies ordered by 
Judge Jackson. Then the Department began speaking of the extensive 
litigation risk involved in pursuing a remedy based on the need for 
immediate relief. Finally, the Department--;outside of public 
scrutiny--;emerges with the Proposed Final Judgment, which based 
on Dr. Stiglitz'' analysis appears to be woefully inadequate.
    12. I declare to the court that where ``there is smoke 
there is typically fire.'' Even if the ``fire'' in 
the context of modem day political influence peddling is very 
subtle, it nonetheless does not serve the public interest. My view 
is that Microsoft's political campaign has been so extensive the 
court should take immediate notice. In modem political influence-
peddling and purchasing, Microsoft has set a new bar. South Korea's 
spreading cash throughout Washington in the 1970s Tongsun Park 
scandal paled in comparison.
    13. During the course of my research I was struck by the 
similarities between Microsoft and the current scandal involving 
Enron Corporation. While Enron, of course, is in an entirely 
different business, it seems the core issue--;from a public 
disclosure perspective--;is its campaign contributions and its 
ability to influence the nation's energy policy. Microsoft's 
campaign contributions significantly surpassed those of Enron; 
Microsoft was a defendant in a major governmental lawsuit; and it 
appears Microsoft may have successfully influenced the 
Administration's antitrust policy, with major implications for legal 
antitrust precedent.
    14. My recommendation to the court is to undertake an immediate 
review of Microsoft's lobbying activities surrounding this 
settlement, with particular attention to meetings with the Justice 
Department or the White House by Microsoft or its agents. Included 
in this review should also be contacts made on Microsoft's behalf to 
the Justice Department or the White House by Members of Congress, 
their official staff, and campaign staff. The court should also 
interview Department of Justice staff who do not operate within the 
sphere of political appointees. And the court should interview the 
political appointees of the Attorney General and their staff. 
Moreover, the court should review any contacts or communications 
between the Republican National Committee, the National Republican 
Senatorial Committee, the Republican Congressional Campaign 
Committee, and the White House or the Justice Department. Lastly, 
the court should review any contacts or communications between 
Microsoft and the settling states. Anything less would clearly not 
vindicate the public interest.
    II. REVIEW OF PUBLIC RECORD
    15. Since May 1998, Microsoft has fought strenuously in the 
courtroom to defend its ``freedom to innovate'' and to 
continue with business as usual. In fact, plugging in 
``Microsoft + trial'' into the Google search engine 
produces more than 697,000 article hits. When ``Microsoft + 
politics'' is entered into the search engine, Google produced 
nearly 448,000 articles and links. But as hard as it fought inside 
the courtroom, Microsoft fought far harder--;often 
secretly--;outside the courtroom to influence the outcome of the 
trial. In a campaign unprecedented in its size, scope, and cost, 
Microsoft used campaign contributions, phony front groups, intensive 
lobbying, biased polling, and other creative, if not possibly 
unethical, pressure and public relations tactics to escape from the 
trial with its monopoly intact. According to media accounts, 
experts, and my own research, Microsoft spent tens of millions of 
dollars to attempt to create an aura outside the courtroom of what 
it could not prove inside--;innocence. According to Business 
Week Magazine: ``Even seasoned Washington hands say they have 
never seen anything quite as flamboyant as the Microsoft 
effort.''\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\BusinessWeek, May 15, 2000, Carney
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. In late 2001, when the Department of Justice and a group of 
state Attorneys General agreed to the currently proposed settlement, 
it appeared as if Microsoft's efforts were successful. Fortunately, 
two obstacles stand in the way of Microsoft and the continued 
monopolization of the software industry: the remaining state 
Attorneys General who are continuing to litigate for a more 
effective remedy and the Tunney Act, which--;among other 
things--;requires Microsoft to divulge all of its dealings with 
the Administration and Congress in conjunction with the antitrust 
trial. A. Campaign Contributions
    17. In 1995, before the United States Department of Justice and 
state Attorneys General from 19 states and the District of Columbia 
brought an antitrust case against it, Microsoft had virtually no 
presence in Washington, DC The company had only one lobbyist working 
out of a Chevy Chase, Maryland sales office and had contributed less 
than $50,000 in the previous election cycle.\4\ Its lobbyist, 
Jack Krumholtz, had no secretary and its PAC was financed by only 
$16,000. In those days, the Microsoft lobbying operation was 
affectionately referred to in press reports as ``Jack and his 
Jeep.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\``The Microsoft Playbook'' Common Cause
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    18. However, since the beginning of the antitrust case against 
Microsoft, the company has become a major political contributor and 
was the fifth largest during the 2000 election cycle\5\, 
alongside the giants of the tobacco, telecommunications, 
pharmaceuticals and insurance industries. Microsoft's political 
contributions to elected leaders in a position to help the software 
giant in this election cycle when the trial was at its peak, was 
greater than all previous, cumulative campaign contributions. In the 
history of American PACs, only three companies that have raised at 
least $50K in one election cycle have increased receipts by 500% in 
the next. In 1984-;86, Drexel Burnham Lambert, the corrupt and 
now-defunct securities brokerage, increased its receipts from just 
under $67,000 to more than $446,000, a 567% jump. In that same 
cycle, AT&T, facing antitrust divestiture, increased its PAC 
receipts by 745%, from $215,000 to $1.8 million. In the history of 
corporate PACs, only 68 have increased their spending by half in one 
election cycle after reaching a level of a quarter of a million 
dollars. Only 15 have doubled their spending in one election cycle 
after reaching that level. Only one--;Microsoft--;has 
approached tripling its spending after reaching that threshold. 
Microsoft increased its spending almost fivefold, from $267,000 to 
more than $1.2 million, between the 1997-;98 and 
1999-;2000 election cycles. (Table 5.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\San Francisco Chronicle, July 1, 2001, Wildermuth
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    20. Every year, Microsoft tops itself. The company's political 
giving in the 2000

[[Page 28392]]

cycle--;the time leading up to its day of judgment in federal 
court--;was again more than it contributed in all previous 
cycles combined. Campaign money to candidates and political parties 
in just one state was greater than Microsoft's contributions from 
1990 through 1996 to every state and federal candidate combined. 
(Note that the government first levied antitrust charges against 
Microsoft in 1995.)
    Except for Microsoft, no corporate PAC sponsor in American 
history has increased its PAC receipts by an order of magnitude, 
starting from a base of $50,000 or more. Since 1986, the only such 
firm that has increased its PAC receipts by as much as 500% in one 
election cycle is Microsoft. Receipts for Microsoft's PAC rose a 
record-setting 903%, froth $59,790 in 1995-;96 to just under 
$600,000 in 1997-;98. (Table 1.) Microsoft followed this by 
another jump of 165% in 1999-;2000, to $1.59 million. (Table 
2.) In the history of corporate PACs, only 15 have had as much as a 
300% rise in receipts after achieving a base of $50,000. (That 
requires rising from at least $50,000 to at least $200,000.) None 
has ever followed such a rise with another three-digit percentage 
increase in receipts, except Microsoft. (That would require a 
subsequent rise to at least $400,000.) 21. Between 1995 and 2000, 
Microsoft donated more than $3.5 million to federal candidates and 
to the national parties, about two-thirds of which was contributed 
during the 2000 election cycle alone.\6\ Including company and 
employee donations to political parties, candidates and PACs in the 
2000 election cycle, Microsoft's giving (that of the company, its 
PAC and its employees) amounted to more than $6.1 million, far more 
than has been previously reported.\7\ Nearly $1 million came 
in the 40 days immediately before the November 7th election. As most 
political operatives know, these late contributions often are made 
by donors who don't want their participation known until after the 
election, when financial reports for the final days of a campaign 
are due, and public and news media attention are no longer focused 
upon the election. The effect of delaying contributions until very 
near the election is to thwart efforts by the news media and the 
political opposition to make disclosures meaningful to voters before 
they vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\Common Cause
    \7\Independent analysis of giving to elective office
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    i. Federal Contributions
    (a) ``Soft'' Money
    22. Comprising the majority of Microsoft's campaign 
contributions was soft money.\8\ Like their overall presence in 
Washington, Microsoft's soft money donations grew substantially 
since the beginning of the antitrust trial. In fact, in the seven 
days preceding Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's ruling against 
Microsoft, the company donated more in soft money to the national 
political parties than it gave to federal candidates and political 
parties between 1989 and 1996. 23. During the 1999-;2000 
election cycle, Microsoft and its executives accounted for some 
$2,298,551 in ``soft money'' contributions, according to 
FEC records. For context, consider that this was two-thirds more 
than the $1,546,055 in soft money contributed by the now-bankrupt 
Enron and its executives during the same period. candidates and 
political parties and PACs federally and in all 50 states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\``Soft'' money is the term generally applied 
to unregulated, unlimited corporate and individual contributions 
that can not go to candidates but typically goes to political 
parties in support of party ``efforts.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As one business commentator put it: ``...there's something 
quite disturbing about watching the world's richest man trying to 
buy his way out of trouble with Uncle Sam... Gates's actions 
undermine the legal system itself.''\9\
    (b) Political Action Committee (PAC) Money
    24. Microsoft's PAC donations also grew substantially in the 
years since the beginning of the antitrust trial. In 1998, the 
company made a concerted effort to increase the size of its PAC.
    Within a matter of days, the company grew its PAC from $31,000 
to $326,000.\10\ Employees contributed $1.6 million to 
Microsoft's PAC for the 2000 election cycle which allowed the PAC to 
contribute more than $1.2 million. The PAC began the 2002 election 
cycle with an impressive $772,000 cash-on-hand--;more than any 
other American corporate PAC.
    Microsoft's unprecedented rise as a political player took its 
PAC from just under $60,000 in 1995- 96 receipts to just under $1.6 
million in 1999-;2000. In the history of corporate PACs, only 
two have had a rise of more than 1,000% in receipts over four years 
(two election cycles), after attaining $50,000. Only one, Microsoft, 
has had an increase of more than 2,000%. From 1995-;96 through 
1999-;2000, Microsoft's PAC increased in size by more than 
2,500%. (Table 4.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\BusinessWeek, April 24, 2000, France
    \10\ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) Party Breakdown
    25. While Microsoft has donated to both national political 
parties, the company has tended to favor Republicans, who have been 
more vocal in their defense of the company. Between 1995 and 1998, 
72% of Microsoft's contributions went to Republicans, while the GOP 
received only 55% of the company's donations during the 2000 
election cycle.\11\ Republicans received a total of $3.2 
million, about half of which--;$1.69 million--;went to the 
national Republican Party. 26. Yet, when analyzing Microsoft's 
campaign contributions by donating entity, some stark disparities 
emerge. Virtually all of the money donated by individual Microsoft 
employees ($222,750) benefited Democratic 527s, groups that raise 
and spend money independent of political campaigns During this same 
period Microsoft employees gave $15,000 to Republican affiliated 
527s. Democratic PACs also benefited from Microsoft's employees 
largesse, receiving $222,100 compared to just $42,875 for Republican 
PACs.
    27. But Republicans enjoyed an edge in every other category; the 
majority of donations to leadership PACs, state parties and 
candidates went to the Republican Party. The following table 
illustrates the disparity.
    Republican Democrat
    Leadership PACs $162,000 $41,500
    State Parties $255,025 $38,887
    Candidates $1,053,792 $818,951
    (ii) State Contributions
    28. Along with the Department of Justice, 19 states and the 
District of Columbia initially prosecuted Microsoft. Naturally, 
then, Microsoft concentrated a good deal of its campaign 
contributions on state races.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    29. Candidates and political parties in all 50 states received 
contributions from Microsoft, but none more so than the company's 
home state of Washington, which received $830,478. Republicans 
received $359,000 while $458,000 went to Democrats. Nearly all of 
the $100,000 edge for the Democrats came from contributions to the 
State Democratic Party, which totaled $85,387. 30. One of the 
original states participating in the suit was South Carolina, whose 
attorney general, Charles Condon, was facing re-election in 1998. 
Shortly before the election, Microsoft contributed $25,000 to the 
South Carolina Republican Party. According to the Chairman of the 
South Carolina Republican Party this was the largest unsolicited 
donation ever received. Three weeks after he won, Attorney General 
Condon withdrew from the antitrust case. Two years ago, Condon 
solicited and received a $3,500 donation from Microsoft.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\USA Today, 5-;30-;00, Ullman, Drinkard
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    31. In California, a state represented by Attorney General Bill 
Lockyer, Microsoft contributed $25,000 to the 1998 election campaign 
for challenger Dave Stirling, a Republican; a contribution made nine 
days before election day. The company contributed an additional 
$10,000 to gubernatorial democratic candidate Gray Davis, whose 
opponent was among the original 19 state attorneys general to bring 
the antitrust suit against Microsoft.
    32. Within weeks of the 2000 election, Microsoft CEO Steve 
Ballmer made late contributions of $50,000 each to two state 
Republican Parties, Michigan and Washington, where Microsoft found 
its defenders under fire. Then U.S. Senator Spencer Abraham, a 
Michigan Republican who is now Secretary of Energy, had been an 
outspoken supporter of Microsoft. Former U.S. Senator Slade Gorton, 
a Washington state Republican, who proudly called himself ``the 
Senator from Microsoft'' had even sought to cut the funding of 
the Justice Department's Antitrust Division while the court case was 
ongoing.
    33. Microsoft used back channels to direct even more undisclosed 
soft money into the 2000 Michigan Senate race. According to The Wall 
Street Journal, Microsoft ``funneled'' soft money into the 
race by secretly making undisclosed contributions to the Michigan 
Chamber of Commerce to fund negative ads aimed at Abraham's 
opponent, now U.S. Senator Deborah Stabenow. Some close to the 
Chamber have estimated that the contributions, while legal and not 
requiring reporting, may have amounted to more than $250,000.\13\ 
Such contributions are usually made to organizations to support the 
organization's activities, not political ads--;which is why 
there is no disclosure

[[Page 28393]]

requirement. Microsoft knew this and took advantage of the loophole 
in Michigan. Political operatives throughout the country reported 
similar occurrences in other political races considered ``top 
targets'' by both national parties, but efforts to gain access 
to contributor lists from some of the ``independent'' 
groups believed to be accepting the contributions have unsuccessful.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\Wall Street Journal, Oct. 16, 2000, Wilke
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    34. Significant contributions were also made in Missouri by 
Microsoft to help re-elect Senator John Ashcroft, the current U.S. 
Attorney General. Missouri was another state where independent 
groups without significant resources of their own suddenly were 
flush with money to run ads defending Ashcroft and attacking his 
opponent. Ashcroft, whose campaign benefited greatly from 
Microsoft's disclosed campaign contributions--;$19,000 in 
reported donations--;lost his election bid. He now runs the 
federal executive department responsible for proposing the 
settlement offer, and his office is now staffed with political 
operatives who played a role in raising the $19,000 from Microsoft, 
coordinating his campaign efforts with those of Microsoft in 
Missouri, and in one case, directing the entire Republican National 
Committee fundraising and political campaign operation in the 2000 
election cycle.
    35. Deborah Senn, the Democratic primary opponent of Washington 
State Senator Cantwell, received $15,000 more from Microsoft than 
did Cantwell who received $30,150. This total, however, dwarfs the 
money poured into now-former Senator Gorton's 
campaign--;$131,160. Only
    Democratic Congressman Jay Inslee's total of $126,850 comes 
close to that of former Senator Gorton. Congressman Inslee 
represents Microsoft's home district, and defends the company 
vigorously in Washington, D.C.
    36. In addition to those in Washington State, candidates or 
parties in three other states received contributions totaling six 
figures. California was second at $174,900 with virtually the entire 
amount going to Leadership PACs--;Members'' PACs that 
contribute money to other allied candidates--;and directly to 
Members of Congress. Texas was third at $107,250 although this 
amount does not include contributions to the Bush/Cheney campaign. 
This was an unusually large amount for the state when compared to 
previous giving patterns.
    37. While Microsoft contributed $100,000 to the Bush/Cheney 
Inaugural Committee in January 2001, virtually all contributions to 
presidential campaigns were made prior to July 31st, with the 
exception of contributions to Libertarian Party candidate Harry 
Browne's campaign. (This is presumably because, to be eligible for 
federal matching funds for the primaries and federal funding for the 
general election, major party candidates receiving are not allowed 
to solicit or receive campaign contributions after they are 
nominated at their conventions.) Only four primary presidential 
candidates received contributions greater than $10,000: Bill 
Bradley, $33,400; George Bush, $57,300; Al Gore, $28,000, John 
McCain $39,448.
    Table 1. Candidates & Organizations Receiving $10,000 or 
more from Microsoft Following is a breakdown of Microsoft's 
contributions of more than $10,000 to candidates and organizations 
during the 2000 election cycle.
    Abraham for Senate $24,650.00 Kerrey for US Senate $10,000.00
    Adam Smith for Congress $31,750.00 Leadership PAC 2000 (Oxley) 
$10,000.00
    American Success PAC(Drier) $11,750.00 Majority Leader's Fund 
(Armey) $11,000.00
    Ashcroft (combined) $19,250.00 McCain 2000 $39,448.00
    Bill Bradley for President $33,400.00 McIntosh for Governor 
$25,000.00
    Brian Baird for Congress $38,400.00 Michigan Republican State 
Ctte. $50,000.00
    Bush for President $57,300.00 Montana Republican State Ctte. 
$10,000.00
    Bush/Cheney Inaugural $100,000.00 NDN $38,750.00
    California FriendsLatino PAC $10,000.00 New Majority Project 
$15,000.00
    California Women Vote $10,000.00 New York Senate 2000 $40,000.00
    Cantwell 2000 $30,150.00 NWLeadership PAC (Gorton) $17,000.00
    Citizens for Rick Larsen $35,600.00 Republican Party 
$1,691,090.50
    DASHPAC $10,000.00 Republican Campaign Committee of New Mexico 
$33,492.48
    Democratic Party $1,300,892.00 Republican Majority Fund (Don 
Nickles) $15,000.00
    Democratic Party of Georgia $20,000.00 Republican Party of 
Virginia $12,000.00
    Dooley for Congress $10,500.00 Republican Senate Council 
$15,000.00
    EMILY's List $176,600.00 Santorum 2000 $11,000.00
    Ensign for Senate $10,000.00 Senn 2000 $45,651.00
    Feinstein 2000 $12,000.00 Snowe for Senate $10,000.00
    Friends for Slade Gorton $131,160.00 TechNet $10,000.00
    Friends of Conrad Bums $15,250.00 Utah Republican Party 
$29,383.00
    Friends of Heidi $16,300.00 Washington State Democratic Central 
Committee $30,387.00
    Friends of Jennifer Dunn $14,700.00 Washington State Republican 
Party $104,150.00
    Gore for President $28,000.00 Washington Victory Committee 1999 
$35,500.00
    Inslee for Congress $126,850.00 Washington Victory Fund 
$55,000.00
    Jim Davis for Congress $17,250.00 Washington Women Vote 
$11,000.00
    Jon Kyl for Senate $11,000.00 Western Republican PAC $10,000.00
    Kennedy for Senate $12,000.00 Women Vote 2000 $100,000.00
    B. ``Strategic'' Philanthropy
    38. Microsoft has also contributed money to the causes of 
politicians as yet another method to use donations, political in 
nature, to gamer support and ultimately influence the outcome of the 
trial.
    39. According to USA Today, Microsoft and the philanthropic arm 
of its founder and chairman, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, 
``donate millions of dollars to causes and projects that are 
dear to the hearts of government policymakers, such as a $50,000 
gift to the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation.''\14\ 
Shortly after the donation to the CBC, according to Business Week, 
Microsoft gained an unlikely ally in the Caucus chairman, 
Representative James E. Clyburn (D- SC), ``who represents one 
of the least technology-rich districts in the 
country.''\15\ In addition, a timely $10 million gift to 
the U.S. Capitol Visitor's Center further endeared Microsoft to many 
Members of Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\USA Today, May 30, 2000, Drinkard, Ullman
    \15\BusinessWeek, May 15, 2000, Carney, Borrus, Greene
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    40. Yet the strategic philanthropy began long before the 2000 
election cycle. According to the Gates Foundation web site, there 
was a three-year hiatus in philanthropic giving between 1995 and 
1998. Curiously, the last donation in 1995 occurred just prior to 
the signing of the 1995 consent decree and the first donation in 
1998 occurred the day prior to the Department of Justice filing its 
antitrust suit against Microsoft.
    c. Lobbying
    41. In addition to the millions Microsoft spent on campaign 
contributions, the company spent millions more lobbying Congress, 
the Administration and state officials to influence the outcome of 
the antitrust trial. Much like its campaign contributions, the 
company's lobbying presence in
    Washington has grown significantly in the last few years, its 
growth accelerating rapidly at the outset of the antitrust trial. 
Once just Jack Krumholtz, the company's lobbying group now employs
    40 people in Redmond and Washington. The company has hired a 
dozen lobbying firms and counts among its consultants and lobbyists 
some of the most prominent figures in politics. A company with 
30,000 employees, Microsoft has more lobbyists on retainer than the 
handful of U.S. companies with more than 300,000 employees. 
According to USA Today, ``in 1996, the company spent $1.2 
million on its Washington lobbying operations. [In 1999], that 
figure topped $4.6 million.'' According to Business Week in 
reference to the company's political spending, ``These days, 
Microsoft money flows like champagne at a wedding.''\16\ 
Some of the biggest names in Washington going back 30 years 
represent Microsoft--;many are former bosses of the people they 
lobby. There are more than a half-dozen former Members of Congress, 
four former White House Chief Counsels, countless dozens of former 
senior aides from the Congress, Justice Department and elsewhere 
throughout the highest levels of government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\16 ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    i. Lobbying the Administration
    42. Since the inauguration of George W, Bush in January 2001, 
Microsoft has made a concerted effort to strengthen its ties to the 
Administration. The Administration's decision to agree to a 
settlement widely accepted to be ineffective calls into question the 
nature of such ties.

[[Page 28394]]

    43. Prior to the announcement of the settlement, for example, it 
has been reported there was an inappropriate, if not illegal, 
discussion between a senior aide to Attorney General John Ashcroft 
and a lobbyist for AOL-Time Warner.
    44. According to the account in the New York Times, the senior 
aide to General Ashcroft is David Israelite. Israelite was the 
political director of the Republican National Committee which 
received more than a million dollars from Microsoft during the 2000 
presidential campaign.
    In that role, Mr. Israelite directed fundraising operations and 
coordinated campaign activities between entities like Microsoft and 
the national party apparatus. Now General Ashcroft's deputy chief of 
staff in the Office of the Attorney General, Mr. Israelite recused 
himself from the case as a result of his ownership of 100 shares of 
Microsoft stock.
    45. The Times wrote, ``According to the notes of a person 
briefed about the conversation on Oct. 9, the day it is said to have 
occurred, Mr. Israelite called [AOL lobbyist] Mr. [Wayne] Berman. 
``Are you guys behind this business of the states hiring their 
own lawyers in the Microsoft case?'' Mr. Israelite asked Mr. 
Berman in the predawn conversation, according to the notes. 
`Tell your clients we wouldn't be too happy about 
that.''
    46. Israelite allegedly said on that call that the Supreme Court 
was soon to deny Microsoft's appeal, which would prompt the 
Department of Justice to seek a settlement. He was reported to have 
complained that AOL was ``radicalizing'' the states. \17\ 
While the conversation was confirmed, the participants denied the 
content of the conversation. Still, it was enough to provoke angry 
responses from the technology industry and an accusation of 
``inappropriate and possibly illegal'' conduct from a key 
House Democrat, Congressman John Conyers, Ranking Democratic Member 
of the House Judiciary Committee. In a letter to Attorney General 
Ashcroft, Rep. Conyers asked for more information about Israelite's 
alleged contacts with Berman, specifically asking for a list of 
contacts between Israelite and AOL officials. ``If the 
allegations reported by the media are true, such active involvement 
by a recused public official could violate federal conflict of 
interest laws,'' Conyers wrote. \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\17 New York Times, Nov. 2, 2001
    \18\The Kansas City Star, Nov. 8, 2000, Kraske
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ii. Lobbying on the Campaign Trail
    47. Mirroring its political giving strategy, Microsoft's 
lobbying strategy has focused mainly on Republicans, while hedging 
its bets and simultaneously courting Democrats to a slightly lesser 
extent. 48. During the campaign, Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates was 
asked if a Republican administration would be a positive development 
for the company. It would ``help,'' he said. \19\ After 
all, before Judge Jackson ruled against Microsoft, then Governor 
Bush was quoted as saying that he stood ``on the side of 
innovation, not litigation.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\Common Cause, ``The Microsoft Playbook''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    49. In fact, according to Newsweek Magazine, Bill Gates's visit 
to then Governor Bush in Austin was ``part of a delicate 
political dance between the software giant and the Republican Party 
.... Dollar signs in their eyes, GOP leaders covet big political 
contributions from Microsoft's coffers. In turn, Microsoft 
executives, plagued by the Clinton Justice Department's lawsuit, 
hope that a Republican president and Congress might shut down the 
efforts to punish the company.'' 50. A number of other 
Microsoft executives, lobbyists and other paid counsel lead back to 
the Bush camp. The company's Chief Operating Officer, Steve Ballmer, 
served then Governor Bush as a technology adviser. Tony Feather, 
former Bush political director, is a partner with a Republican 
consulting firm Microsoft hired to manage grassroots lobbying 
efforts. And Microsoft has paid lobbyist and former head of the 
Republican Party Haley Barbour hundreds of thousands of dollars to 
assist the company in Washington. The company has also hired Vin 
Weber, a former Republican Congressman, and Michael Deaver, the 
former White House chief of staff and trusted adviser credited with 
crafting President Ronald Reagan's image and campaign advertisements 
in the 1980s. 51. In addition, Microsoft retained the services of 
Ralph Reed's Century Strategies ``for the stated purpose of 
improving the company's public image.'' \20\ Reed's 
firm--;a paid consultant to the Bush campaign--;aimed itself 
at mobilizing Bush supporters to express to the candidate their 
dissatisfaction with the antitrust trial. Once it was reported in 
the New York Times, the firm issued an apology. The Wall Street 
Journal later reported more on Ralph Reed's lobbying efforts on 
Microsoft's behalf:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\20 ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ``BOUNTY PAYMENTS are offered for pro- Microsoft letters 
and calls. Republican Ralph Reed's lobbying firm coordinates a 
network of public-relations and lobbying partners that generates 
grass-roots comments for cash. Payments are for letters, calls and 
visits to lawmakers and policy makers. An e-mail offers sample 
letters opposing a Microsoft breakup. A letter to a member of 
Congress from a mayor or local Republican Party official is worth 
$200, the guidelines say. A ``premier'' letter or visit by 
a fund-raiser known to the lawmaker or a family member can be worth 
up to $450 apiece. An op-ed piece in local papers fetches 
$500.'' \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\WSJ, Oct. 20, 2000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    52. Microsoft was lobbying the Democratic side as well. Like its 
team of Republican all-stars, Microsoft's team of Democrats had very 
close ties to its party as well. The team included ``super 
lobbyist'' Tommy Boggs, a top Washington insider with deep 
Democratic ties, Tom Downey, a former Democratic Congressman with 
close ties to former Vice President Al Gore, and Craig Smith, former 
campaign manager for Gore and board member of the Microsoft front 
group, Americans for Technology Leadership. As a board member of the 
ATL, Smith wrote to the Democratic National Committee urging his 
fellow party members to abandon support for the antitrust case, 
citing that support ``would make us vulnerable to attack in the 
general election.'' \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\Common Cause, ``The Microsoft Playbook''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    53. The company also hired Ginny Terzano, former Gore press 
secretary, and tobacco industry ad man Carter Eskew, a former Gore 
adviser-cum-Microsoft image consultant who helped craft the 
company's 1999 advertising campaign aimed at bolstering its 
reputation as a ``good corporate citizen.'' Also retained 
by Microsoft was super-lobbyist Jack Quinn, former Chief of Staff to 
Vice President Al Gore and White House Counsel.
    iii. Lobbying Capitol Hill
    54. But Microsoft did not focus solely on lobbying those who 
would soon be in control of the Department of Justice. Microsoft 
also waged a massive lobbying campaign aimed at Congress.
    55. Alongside its Administration-oriented team, Microsoft 
recruited more lobbyists and consultants with ties to Members of 
Congress on both sides of the aisle. Republican hires included 
Allison McSlarrow, former deputy chief of staff to Senate Majority 
Leader Trent Lott, Ed Kutler, former assistant to then Speaker of 
the House Newt Gingrich, Mitch Bainwol, former chief of staff to the 
Senate Republican Caucus and the Republcian National Committee, 
Kerry Knott, former chief of staff to House Majority Leader Richard 
Armey, Ed Gillespie, former Armey and Republican National Committee 
communications director, and Mimi Simoneaux, former legislative 
director to House Commerce Committee Chairman Billy Tauzin, who was 
then-chairman of the House subcommittee with jurisdiction over the 
technology industry.
    56. Among the Democrats lobbying on behalf of Microsoft were 
Jamie Houton, former associate director of the Senate Democratic 
Steering Committee, former Democratic Representative Vic Fazio, the 
third-highest ranking House Democrat, and his former top staffer Tom 
Jurkovich.
    57. Despite Microsoft's assertion in its mere three-page Tunney 
Act disclosure filing, the company has incessantly used its 
tremendous resources to contact and influence Members of Congress. 
Over the course of a 16-month period beginning in 1999, Microsoft 
flew at least 130 Members of Congress or their staff to the 
company's headquarters in Redmond, Washington to lobby on a number 
of issues, including the antitrust case.
    58. Perhaps the most egregious example of its heavy-handed 
largesse came in late 1999, when Microsoft lobbied Congress to cut 
$9 million from the budget for the Department of Justice's Antitrust 
Division, the very body that was leading the prosecution against 
Microsoft. Pilloried industries like the gun and tobacco had 
considered and rejected the strategy as overly bold.
    59. According to the Washington Post, ``Nonprofit 
organizations that receive financial support from [Microsoft] have 
also urged key congressional appropriators to limit spending for the 
division .... The non profits made their request in a letter last 
month after an all-expenses-paid trip to Microsoft headquarters in 
Redmond, Washington, where they were entertained and briefed on an 
array of issues facing the company.'' Further discussion 
follows in the next section entitled ``Front Groups.''

[[Page 28395]]

    60. After the previously secret letters from these non-profit 
groups were exposed, news of the attempts received widespread 
bipartisan criticism from media and politicians alike. House 
Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R-IL), called the division 
``one of the best-run departments in the government.'' 
Senator Herb Kohl, a Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee's 
antitrust subcommittee, said ``it would set [a] terrible 
precedent to alter the division's budget based on one case 
alone.'' ``It's like the Mafia trying to defund the 
FBI,'' said a prominent member of the Washington antitrust bar. 
\23\ According to Jan McDavid, a lawyer with the Washington firm of 
Hogan & Hartson and chairperson of the American Bar 
Association's antitrust section, the section's policy states that it 
``opposes the use of the congressional budget and 
appropriations process to intervene in or influence ongoing 
antitrust enforcement matters.'' \24\One congressional GOP 
staffer went as far as to say that Microsoft's lobbying had 
``the odor of obstruction.'' \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\23 Reuters, Oct. 17, 1999, Lawsky
    \24\ibid.
    \25\WS J, Oct. 15, 1999
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    61. Not surprisingly, Senator Slade Gorton, a Republican from 
Microsoft's home state of Washington, was adamantly supportive of 
the idea. Between 1997 and 1999, he received more than $50,000 from 
Microsoft and its employees. During the 2000 election cycle, 
Gorton's PAC received $17,000 while the Washington State Republican 
Party received more than $100,000.
    iv. Lobbying the States
    62. Because 19 state attorneys general initiated the antitrust 
case alongside the Department of Justice, Microsoft initiated a 
state lobbying campaign aimed at influencing those attorneys general 
to back away from the case. Microsoft even hired former Iowa House 
Speaker Donald Avenson to lobby the state's Attorney General, who 
was leading the group of states prosecuting the company. While 
Microsoft has retained professional ``grassroots 
consultants'' and others in many states, according to published 
reports, it is their efforts in the 19 states with Attorneys General 
who brought suit against them where the real pressure has occurred. 
In those states they have retained former lawmakers, law partners of 
the Attorneys General, their predecessors in that same office, 
business associates, and their own trusted political consultants. 
Microsoft has also hired those on whom the AGs are often most 
politically dependent, such as union leaders and activists in states 
with Democratic Attorneys General, and fiscally conservative 
activists in state with Republican AGs.
    63. Perhaps the company's most successful effort to influence 
the state attorneys general came in 1998, when, three days after a 
$25,000 contribution to the South Carolina Republican Party, the 
state's Attorney General, Charles Condon, announced that he would 
withdraw from the case.
    64. Yet, a few of its grassroots efforts targeted at the states 
have done more harm than good. Because of the unprecedented size, 
scope and cost of Microsoft's campaign, a number of high profile 
gaffes have exhibited the true nature of Microsoft's ``public 
support'' and the depths to which the company will go to 
influence the outcome of the trial.
    65. In August 2001, the Los Angeles Times reported that two 
letters received by the Utah Attorney General's office, one of the 
prosecuting states, were sent by dead men. The campaign was funded 
by Craig Smith's Americans for Technology Leadership. Despite its 
claims to represent ``thousands of small and mid-sized 
technology companies,'' news reports have repeatedly 
characterized ATL and its counterpart, the Association for 
Competitive Technology (ACT) as essentially wholly- owned 
subsidiaries of Microsoft Corp., whose funding launched and sustains 
both groups. \26\ Other characteristics of the letter writing 
campaign to the Attorneys General included similar phrases popping 
up again and again, invalid return addresses, and even masses of 
identical letters with different signatories.
    66. In one news story, Jim Prendergast, director of ATL, 
initially admitted only to providing letter writers with 
``message points.'' ``We gave them a few bullet 
points, but that's about the extent of it,'' he said. When 
asked why identical phrases were popping up again and again, he 
confessed that sometimes ATL did indeed provide whole letters for 
the citizens to sign and send. ``We'd write the letter and then 
send it to them,'' he admitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\``Microsoft's All-Out Counterattack.'' Dan 
Carney, with Amy Borrus. BusinessWeek May 15, 2000; 
``Microsoft's Lobbying Largess Pays Off; Back-Channel Effort 
Wins Support for Case.'' James V. Grimaldi. Washington Post May 
17, 2000; ``Microsoft leans creatively on levers of political 
power as breakup decision looms, `stealth'' lobbying 
efforts aim for survival.'' Jim Drinkard and Owen Ullmann. USA 
Today May 30, 2000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    67. According to the same article, other states, like Minnesota 
and Iowa, were subjected to Microsoft's full-press grassroots 
lobbying campaign. Both states are participants in the antitrust 
case. In the case of Iowa, Attorney General Tom Miller received more 
than 50 letters in a month's time calling on him to drop the case. 
While none of the letters were identical, several phrases were 
similar. In four of the letters, for example, the following sentence 
appeared: ``Strong competition and innovation have been the 
twin hallmarks of the technology industry.'' Three others 
contained this sentence: ``If the future is going to be as 
successful as the recent past, the technology sector must remain 
free from excess regulation.'' \27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\Los Angeles Times, August 23,2001
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    68. Minnesota Attorney General Michael Hatch, who received 300 
identical letters, characterized the campaign as 
``sleazy.'' Many of the letter writers were misled by 
Microsoft and one even wrote by hand to Attorney General Hatch to 
say so and to apologize for his previous letter. ``I sure was 
misled,'' he wrote. ``It's time for you to get out there 
and kick butt.'' \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\28 Los Angeles Times, August 23, 2001
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    vi. Tying Up the Lobbyists and Lawyers
    69. A frequently employed tactic of Microsoft is to retain all 
major lobbying firms in key states so that its opposition cannot. 
Similarly, the company has hired many Washington, DC-based law firms 
with antitrust expertise to work on issues not related to the 
antitrust case. ``They've got the whole town conflicted 
out,'' said one attorney. ``They've sucked out all the 
oxygen.'' \29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\Business Week, May 15, 2000, Borrus, Carney, Greene
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    D. Front Groups 70. Supporting its political contributions and 
lobbying campaign, Microsoft undertook an aggressive public 
relations campaign aimed at ``creating the appearance of a 
groundswell of public support for the company.'' \30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\``Trust Us, We're Experts'' Sheldon Rampton 
and John Stauber, p. 8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    71. In April 1998, a reporter for the Los Angeles Times received 
a package of confidential materials created by Edelman Public 
Relations for its client, Microsoft. Among the documents was a media 
relations strategy for a ``multi-million dollar'' campaign 
aimed at stemming the rash of antitrust investigations being 
undertaken by a number of states in conjunction with the federal 
government's investigation. According to the reporters, Greg Miller 
and Leslie Helm, ``the elaborate plan ... hinges on a number of 
unusual--;and some say unethical--;tactics, including the 
planting of articles, letters to the editor and opinion pieces to be 
commissioned by Microsoft's top media handlers but presented by 
local firms as spontaneous testimonials.'' \31\ While Microsoft 
contends that this strategy was never implemented, a number of the 
company's activities since the outset of the trial clearly indicate 
that most of the elements have been employed, at times repeatedly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    72. Throughout the antitrust trial, Microsoft relied heavily on 
many ``independent'' groups to support the company and to 
oppose the suit publicly. Some groups they created themselves out of 
whole cloth during the trial. Others sullied their long, 
distinguished backgrounds by trading hard cash for the use of their 
good names. Many denied any involvement with Microsoft, claiming 
that their passion came from concern for the economy or 
``innovation''--;only to later be unmasked by the news 
media when evidence of their financial dealings with Microsoft came 
to light. One account suggests Microsoft has harnessed at least 15 
advocacy groups and think tanks that use Microsoft donations to 
spread the company's message through polls, news conferences, Web 
sites, letters to the editor, research papers, opinion pieces and 
letter-writing campaigns aimed at lawmakers. \32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\32 USA TODAY, ``Microsoft leans creatively on 
levers of political power as breakup decision looms, 
`stealth'' lobbying efforts aim for survival'' by 
Jim Drinkard and Owen Ullmann, May 30, 2000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    73. Groups with names like Americans for Technology Leadership 
and the Association for Competitive Technology had the veneer of 
genuine independence, but were actually founded by Microsoft, 
launched with Microsoft dollars, and work on few other issues than 
the defense of Microsoft in its antitrust trial.

[[Page 28396]]

    74. Even well known Washington, DC organizations with strong 
ties to the Administration and to Congress were well funded by 
Microsoft--;respected fiscally conservative groups like Grover 
Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform, former White House Counsel C. 
Boyden Grey's Citizens for a Sound Economy, the National Taxpayers 
Union and Citizens Against Government Waste. But upon closer 
scrutiny, the true ties of these groups to Microsoft became 
apparent. By paying for pro-Microsoft advertisements, by sponsoring 
publications, by donating money outright, Microsoft both ensured and 
devalued their support.
    75. According to Business Week, Microsoft ``secretly funds 
those that do its public-relations work and pulls funding from those 
that dare question its positions.'' \33\ On one such occasion, 
Microsoft pulled funding from the American Enterprise Institute once 
one of its fellows, Robert Bork, came out in favor of the antitrust 
trial even though the institute itself has no position on the trial 
and many of its technical and antitrust experts have expressed their 
opposition to the case. In another case, they quit a technology 
industry trade group, the Software and Information Industry 
Association, because a majority of its members supported the 
antitrust case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\Business Week, May 15, 2000, Carney, Borrus, Greene
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    i. Independent Institute
    76. In one instance, Microsoft paid for the placement of 
newspaper advertisements by the California-based Independent 
Institute. Published in June 1999 in the New York Times and the 
Washington Post, the full-page ads featured a pro-Microsoft letter 
signed by 240 academics. Nothing in the ad's copy indicated to 
readers who--;other than the Institute itself- was paying for 
the ads. Apparently, no one at the Independent Institute indicated 
to the letter's 240 signatories who was paying for the ad either. 
One signatory, Professor Simon Hakim of Temple University, stated 
that he would not have signed on to the advertisement had he known 
who was behind it. \34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\
    I am aware there have been allegations that material relating to 
the Independent Institute was uncovered by Investigative Group 
International (IGI), allegedly retained by Oracle Corporation. My 
understanding of the circumstances indicates that employees of IGI's 
were terminated as a result of their actions. I have not reviewed 
those allegations specifically, since the subject of my review was 
defendant, Microsoft Corporation. Regardless, neither the 
Independent Institute nor Microsoft ever denied the validity of the 
claims after they were exposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    77. At a Washington, DC press conference unveiling the ads, 
Independent Institute president David Theroux answered a 
reporter's specific question about whether Microsoft had 
anything to do with the ads, including paying for them, with a 
resounding ``no.'' When questioned months later by the New 
York Times, Theroux again denied that Microsoft paid for the ads. He 
said, instead, that the ads ``were paid for out of our general 
funds.'' He also said the ``implication that Microsoft had 
any influence is ridiculous.'' \35\ But, according to a front-
page article later written in the New York Times, ``among the 
institute's internal documents is a bill from Mr. Theroux sent to 
John A. C. Kelly of Microsoft for the full costs of the ads, plus 
his travel expenses from San Francisco to Washington for the news 
conference, totaling $153,868.67. Included was a $5,966 bill for 
airline tickets for himself (Theroux) and a colleague. 
Unfortunately, he wrote Mr. Kelly, `the airlines were heavily 
booked'' and `we had to fly first class to DC and 
business class on the return.''' Furthermore, despite 
additional statements from its president that it ``adheres to 
the highest standards of independent scholarly inquiry,'' 
internal institute documents have shown that, having contributed 
more than $200,000, or 20% of the institute's total outside 
contributions, Microsoft ``secretly served as the institute's 
largest outside benefactor [in 1999].'' \36\ It wasn't until 
September that the institute finally admitted the extent of 
Microsoft's support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\Associated Press, September 18, 1999
    \36\New York Times, Sept. 19, 1999
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    78. In these instances, as in others, Microsoft's behavior 
outside the courtroom had a direct impact on the proceedings inside 
the courtroom. According to the New York Times, the ads prompted not 
only more news stories but also courtroom discussion. \37\ Microsoft 
also covered the costs of the publication of the institute's book, 
``Winners, Losers and Microsoft: Competition and Antitrust in 
High Technology,'' which Microsoft's economic witness in the 
trial then used to support his own testimony.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\New York Times, Sept. 19, 1999
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ii. Biased Polling
    79. According to Business Week, Microsoft has also commissioned 
polls to help foster an image of great public support for the 
company. At the outset of the 2000 presidential campaign, around the 
time of the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary, Microsoft 
funded polls aimed at demonstrating the public's opposition to the 
antitrust case. Once the results were in, Microsoft distributed the 
results to the media in order to compel the candidates to 
incorporate their opposition to the case into their platform.
    80. In addition, while the state Attorneys General were working 
through the spring on formulating a remedy, Microsoft front group 
Americans for Technology Leadership conducted and issued the results 
of a poll, which concluded that the public wanted the Attorneys 
General to focus their time and energy on other issues. In this 
case, Microsoft failed to disclose the nature of its relationship 
with ATL and the source of funding for the poll.
    iii. Targeting the Antitrust Division of the Department of 
Justice
    81. As stated above, one of Microsoft's most egregious attempts 
to use lobbying to influence the outcome of the antitrust trial came 
when the company lobbied to cut funding for the Antitrust Division 
of the Department of Justice. Microsoft funded a host of third 
parties to push forth its agenda.
    82. In September 1999, the company flew representatives from 
about 15 major Washington, DC- based think tanks to Microsoft's 
Redmond, Washington headquarters ``for three days of briefings 
that included tickets to a Seattle Mariners game and dinner and 
entertainment at Seattle's Teatro ZinZani, according to an 
itinerary.'' \38\Among the groups were Citizens for a Sound 
Economy, the National Taxpayers Union and Americans for Tax Reform, 
whose president, Grover Norquist, received $40,000 in lobbying 
payments from Microsoft during the second half of 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\The Washington Post, Oct. 15, 1999, Morgan, Eilperin
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    83. Two days after returning from the trip, those three groups 
and three others secretly sent a letter to House appropriators 
urging that the Antitrust Division receive the lowest amount of 
funding proposed. In a coordinated effort, on the same day one of 
Microsoft's own lobbyists, Kerry Knott, met with Rep. Dan Miller of 
Florida to urge him to grant the Antitrust Division the lower amount 
of funds. That meeting prompted Rep. Miller to write to the chairman 
of the House Appropriations Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary 
Subcommittee that ``it would be a devastating blow to the high-
tech industry and to our overall economy if the federal government 
succeeds in its efforts to regulate this industry through 
litigation.'' According to the Washington Post, ``Miller 
said that while he objects to the funding on fiscal grounds, he had 
not focused on it until Knott and Citizens for a Sound Economy 
spokeswoman Christin Tinsworth, a former Miller staffer, made their 
pitch just off the House floor.'' \39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    84. A Washington Post editorial summarized the propriety of the 
incident this way: ``[T]he fact that Microsoft has the right to 
lobby ... doesn't make the lobbying any less unseemly. If Microsoft 
has a gripe, it should make its complaint to the court hearing its 
case.'' \40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\Washington Post, Oct. 24, 1999
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    III. CONCLUSIONS
    85. The end result of Microsoft's unprecedented political 
campaign seems to have been rewarded by the weak settlement 
presented by the Department of Justice.
    Respectfully Submitted,
    Edward Roeder
    January 28, 2002
    APPENDIX A: Selected Tables
    Table 1. Rapid Rises in Corporate PAC Fundraising, 
1979-;2002
    (After Raising More than $50,000)
    Microsoft Corporation, Formed: 1987-;88, Total Raised, 
1995-;96: $59,750, Total Raised, 1997-;98: $599,568, 
Difference: $539,818 = 903.46% Rank: 1
    American Telephone & Telegraph Co., Formed: 1983-;84, 
Total Raised, 1983-;84: $215,423, Total Raised, 1985-;86: 
$1,820,621, Difference: $1,605,198 = 745.14% Rank: 2
    Drexel Burnham Lambert Group, Inc. Formed: 1981-;82, Total 
Raised, 1983-;84: $66,844, Total Raised, 1985-;86: 
$446,279, Difference: $379,435 = 567.64% Rank: 3
    Safari Club International Formed: 1979-;80, Total Raised, 
1993=94: $94,149, Total Raised, 1995-;96: $545,915, Difference: 
$451,766 = 479.84% Rank: 4
    Fluor Corporation Formed: 1979-;80, Total Raised, 
1987-;88: $87,236, Total Raised,

[[Page 28397]]

1989-;90: $494,417, Difference: $407,181 = 466.76% Rank: 5
    Dow Chemical, USA--;HQ Formed: 1979-;80, Total Raised, 
1995-;96: $60,290, Total Raised, 1997-;98: $331,286, 
Difference: $270,996 = 449.49% Rank: 6
    Lucent Technologies, Inc. Formed: 1995-;96, Total Raised, 
1995-;96: $87,568, Total Raised, 1997-;98: $464,592, 
Difference: $377,024 = 430.55% Rank: 7
    Nat'l Star Route Mail Contractors Ass'n Formed: 1981-;82, 
Total Raised, 1995-;96: $63,512, Total Raised, 1983-;84: 
$313,609, Difference: $250,097 = 393.78% Rank: 8
    Eastern Airlines, Inc. Formed: 1979-;80, Total Raised, 
1985-;86: $53,309, Total Raised, 1987-;88: $243,529, 
Difference: $190,220 = 356.83% Rank: 9
    Pacific Telesis Group Formed: 1979-;80, Total Raised, 
1981-;82: $65,538, Total Raised, 1983-;84: $280,183, 
Difference: $214,645 = 327.51% Rank: 10
    Henley Group/Wheelabrator Technologies, Inc. Formed: 
1979-;80, Total Raised, 1985-;86: $89,255, Total Raised, 
1987-;88: $380,102, Difference: $290,847 = 325.86% Rank: 11
    Firstar (First Wisconsin) Corp. Formed: 1979-;80, Total 
Raised, 1997-;98: $113,743, Total Raised, 1999-;00: 
$480,239, Difference: $366,496 = 322.21% Rank: 12
    U.S. West, Inc. Formed: 1983-;84, Total Raised, 
1987-;88: $123,767, Total Raised, 1989-;90: $521,886, 
Difference: $398,119 = 321.67% Rank: 13
    CSX Corp.--;Jeffboat Formed: 1981-;82, Total Raised, 
1997-;98: $74,125, Total Raised, 1999-;00: $303,763, 
Difference: $229,638 = 309.80% Rank: 14
    J. P. Morgan & Company, Inc. Formed: 1979-;80, Total 
Raised, 1983-;84: $68,569, Total Raised, 1985-;86: 
$274,515, Difference: $205,946 = 300.35% Rank: 15
    Source: Computer analysis by Sunshine Press Services of Federal
    Election Commission data, Jan. 1, 1979 through Dec. 31, 2000.
    Table 2. Continued Rises in Corporate PAC Fundraising, 
1979-;2002
    Following Rapid Rise of More than 300% from a base of $50,000+ 
(Ranked by Percentage Rise in Next Election Cycle)
    Microsoft Corporation Formed: 1987-;88, Total Raised, 
1995-;96: $59,750, Total Raised, 1997-;98: $599,568, 
Difference: $539,818 = 903.46% Next Cycle: 1999-;00, Total 
Raised: $1,589,684, Difference: $990,116 = 165.14% Rank: 1
    J. P. Morgan & Company, Inc. Formed: 1979-;80, Total 
Raised, 1983-;84: $68,569, Total Raised, 1985-;86: 
$274,515, Difference: $205,946 = 300.35% Next Cycle: 1987-;88, 
Total Raised: $514,285, Difference: $239,770 = 87.34% Rank: 2
    American Telephone & Telegraph Co. Formed: 1983-;84, 
Total Raised, 1983-;84: $215,423, Total Raised, 1985-;86: 
$1,820,621, Difference: $1,605,198 = 745.14% Next Cycle: 
1987-;88, Total Raised: $3,043,510, Difference: $1,222,889 = 
67.17% Rank: 3
    U.S. West, Inc. Formed: 1983-;84, Total Raised, 
1987-;88: $123,767, Total Raised, 1989-;90: $521,886, 
Difference: $398,119 = 321.67% Next Cycle: 1991-;92, Total 
Raised: $734,130, Difference: $212,244 = 40.67% Rank: 4
    Pacific Telesis Group Formed: 1979-;80, Total Raised, 
1981-;82: $65,538, Total Raised, 1983-;84: $280,183, 
Difference: $214,645 = 327.51% Next Cycle: 1985-;86, Total 
Raised: $364,113, Difference: $83,930 = 29.96% Rank: 5
    Fluor Corporation Formed: 1979-;80, Total Raised, 
1987-;88: $87,236, Total Raised, 1989-;90: $494,417, 
Difference: $407,181 = 466.76% Next Cycle: 1991-;92, Total 
Raised: $610,142, Difference: $115,725 = 23.41% Rank: 6
    Nat'l Star Route Mail Contractors Ass'n Formed: 1981-;82, 
Total Raised, 1995-;96: $63,512, Total Raised, 1983-;84: 
$313,609, Difference: $250,097 = 393.78% Next Cycle: 1985-;86, 
Total Raised: $43,468, Difference: $2,269 = 5.51% Rank: 7
    Firstar (First Wisconsin) Corp. Formed: 1979-;80, Total 
Raised, 1997-;98: $113,743, Total Raised, 1999-;00: 
$480,239, Difference: $366,496 = 322.21% Next Cycle: (data 
incomplete, cycle now in progress)
    CSX Corp.--;Jeffboat Formed: 1981-;82, Total Raised, 
1997-;98: $74,125, Total Raised, 1999-;00: $303,763, 
Difference: $229,638 = 309.80% Next Cycle: (data incomplete, cycle 
now in progress)
    Dow Chemical, USA--;HQ Formed: 1979-;80, Total Raised, 
1995-;96: $60,290, Total Raised, 1997-;98: $331,286, 
Difference: $270,996 = 449.49% Next Cycle: 1999-;00, Total 
Raised: $279,618, Difference: $-51,668 = -15.60% Rank: 10
    Lucent Technologies, Inc. Formed: 1995-;96, Total Raised, 
1995-;96: $87,568, Total Raised, 1997-;98: $464,592, 
Difference: $377,024 = 430.55% Next Cycle: 1999-;00, Total 
Raised: $343,462, Difference: $-121,130 = -26.07% Rank: 11
    Drexel Burnham Lambert Group, Inc. Formed: 1981-;82, Total 
Raised, 1983-;84: $66,844, Total Raised, 1985-;86: 
$446,279, 27



MTC-00028684--;0173 Difference: $379,435 = 567.64% Next 
Cycle: 1987-;88, Total Raised: $310,188, Difference: $-136,091 = -
30.49% Rank: 12

    Safari Club International Formed: 1979-;80, Total Raised, 
1993=94: $94,149, Total Raised, 1995-;96: $545,915, Difference: 
$451,766 = 479.84% Next Cycle: 1997-;98, Total Raised: 
$378,078, Difference: $-167,837 = -30.74% Rank: 13
    Eastern Airlines, Inc. Formed: 1979-;80, Total Raised, 
1985-;86: $53,309, Total Raised, 1987-;88: $243,529, 
Difference: $190,220 = 356.83% Next Cycle: 1989-;90, Total 
Raised: $105,734, Difference: $-137,795 = -56.58% Rank: 14
    Henley Group/Wheelabrator Technologies, Formed: 1979-;80, 
Total Raised, 1985-;86: $89,255, Total Raised, 1987-;88: 
$380,102, Difference: $290,847 = 325.86% Next Cycle: 1989-;90, 
Total Raised: $141,072, Difference: $-239,030 = -62.89% Rank: 15
    Source: Computer analysis by Sunshine Press Services of Federal
    Election Commission data, Jan. 1, 1979 through Dec. 31, 2000.

 Table 3.--;Largest Cash Balances at end of 1999-;2000 Election
                                  Cycle
                         American Corporate PACs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Cash on
                Rank                        PAC Sponsor           Hand
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................  Microsoft Corporation..   $712,874
2...................................  Southern Bell Telephone    617,922
                                       & Telegraph Co..
3...................................  Crawford Group /           611,442
                                       Enterprise Leasing.
4...................................  Southwestern Bell          550,841
                                       Corporation.
5...................................  Chrysler / Gulfstream      481,068
                                       Aerospace Corp..
6...................................  Federal Express            424,739
                                       Corporation.
7...................................  NationsBank............    413,663
8...................................  First Union Corporation    410,242
9...................................  First Bank System, Inc.    405,187
10..................................  Stone Container            368,973
                                       Corporation.
11..................................  General Electric           359,469
                                       Company.
12..................................  National Health            340,205
                                       Corporation.
13..................................  Exxon Corporation......    328,559
14..................................  Outback Steakhouse,        325,977
                                       Inc..
15..................................  Columbia / HCA             284,827
                                       Healthcare.
16..................................  American Family            283,963
                                       Corporation.
17..................................  Cooper Industries, Inc.    281,054
18..................................  Suntrust Banks, Inc....    275,779
19..................................  Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.    273,232
20..................................  Jacobs Engineering         272,982
                                       Group, Inc..
21..................................  Ford Motor Company.....    264,914
22..................................  U.S. West, Inc.........    261,289
23..................................  Compass Bancshares,       253,625
                                       Inc..
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Computer analysis by Sunshine Press Services of Federal
Election Commission data.

    Table 4. Largest Percentage Increases in Receipts Over Two
    Election Cycles
    American Corporate PACs With More Than $50,000
    Microsoft Corporation Formed:1987-;88, Total Raised, 
1995-;96: $59,750, Total Raised, 1999-;00: $1,589,684, 
Difference: $1,529,934 = 2,560.56% Rank: 1
    American Telephone & Telegraph Co. Formed:1983-;84, 
Total Raised, 1983-;84: $215,423, Total Raised, 1987-;88: 
$3,043,510, Difference: $2,828,087 = 1,312.81% Rank: 2
    Firstar (First Wisconsin) Corp. Formed:1979-;80, Total 
Raised, 1995-;96: $59,437, Total Raised, 1999-;00: 
$480,239, Difference: $420,802 = 707.98% Rank: 3
    J. P. Morgan & Company, Inc. Formed:1979-;80, Total 
Raised, 1983-;84: $68,569, Total Raised, 1987-;88: 
$514,285, Difference: $445,716 = 650.03% Rank: 4

[[Page 28398]]

    U.S. West, Inc. Formed:1983-;84, Total Raised, 
1985-;86: $69,588, Total Raised, 1989-;90: $521,886, 
Difference: $452,298 = 649.97% Rank: 5
    Bell Atlantic Corp. Formed:1983-;84, Total Raised, 1993=94: 
$146,949, Total Raised, 1997-;98: $1,046,617, Difference: $899, 
668 = 612.23% Rank: 6
    Fluor Corporation Formed:1979-;80, Total Raised, 
1987-;88: $87,236, Total Raised, 1991-;92: $610,142, 
Difference: $522,906 = 599.42% Rank: 7
    Dow Chemical, USA--;HQ Formed:1979-;80, Total Raised, 
1993=94: $53,297, Total Raised, 1997-;98: $331,286, Difference: 
$277,989 = 521.58% Rank: 8
    GA Technologies, Inc. Formed:1987-;88, Total Raised, 
1987-;88: $51,702, Total Raised, 1991-;92: $320,081, 
Difference: $268,379 = 519.09% Rank: 9
    U.S. West, Inc. Formed:1983-;84, Total Raised, 
1987-;88: $123,767, Total Raised, 1991-;92: $734,130, 
Difference: $610,363 = 493.15% Rank: 10
    American Information Technologies Corp. Formed:1983-;84, 
Total Raised, 1989-;90: $233,266, Total Raised, 1993=94: 
$1,370,945, Difference: $1,137,679 = 487.72% Rank: 11
    Allied-Signal, Inc. Formed:1979-;80, Total Raised, 
1981-;82: $65,703, Total Raised, 1985-;86: $384,530, 
Difference: $318,827 = 485.25% Rank: 12
    Glaxo, Inc. Formed:1985-;86, Total Raised, 1989-;90: 
$106,192, Total Raised, 1993=94: $607,224, Difference: $501,032 = 
471.82% Rank: 13
    Nynex Corporation Formed:1983-;84, Total Raised, 
1991-;92: $62,304, Total Raised, 1995-;96: $346,809, 
Difference: $284,505 = 456.64% Rank: 14
    Pacific Telesis Group Formed:1979-;80, Total Raised, 
1981-;82: $65,538, Total Raised, 1985-;86: $364,113, 
Difference: $298,575 = 455.58% Rank: 15
    Philip Morris, Inc. Formed:1979-;80, Total Raised, 
1979-;80: $93,291, Total Raised, 1983-;84: $499,938, 
Difference: $406,647 = 435.89% Rank: 16
    American Electric Power Company, Inc. Formed:1979-;80, 
Total Raised, 1995-;96: $106,155, Total Raised, 1999-;00: 
$545,295, Difference: $439,140 = 413.68% Rank: 17
    Waste Management, Inc. Formed:1979-;80, Total Raised, 
1981-;82: $76,738, Total Raised, 1985-;86: $391,637, 
Difference: $314,899 = 410.36% Rank: 18
    Cigna Corporation Formed:1979-;80, Total Raised, 
1979-;80: $56,174, Total Raised, 1985-;86: $286,319, 
Difference: $230,145 = 409.70% Rank: 19
    LDDS Communications, Inc. Formed:1987-;88, Total Raised, 
1993=94: $63,542, Total Raised, 1997-;98: $323,680, Difference: 
$260,138 = 409.40% Rank: 20
    Safari Club International Formed:1979-;80, Total Raised, 
1991-;92: $107,314, Total Raised, 1995-;96: $545,915, 
Difference: $438,601 = 408.71% Rank: 21
    Michigan Bell Telephone Company Formed:1979-;80, Total 
Raised, 1983-;84: $53,326, Total Raised, 1987-;88: 
$266,944, Difference: $213,618 = 400.59% Rank: 22
    E1 Paso Company Formed:1979-;80, Total Raised, 
1995-;96: $75,920, Total Raised, 1999-;00: $379,370, 
Difference: $303,450 = 399.70% Rank: 23
    Merrill Lynch & Company, Inc. Formed:1979-;80, Total 
Raised, 1979-;80: $56,895, Total Raised, 1983-;84: 
$282,297, Difference: $225,402 = 396.17% Rank: 24
    Federal Express Corporation Formed:1983-;84, Total Raised, 
1983-;84: $230,478, Total Raised, 1987-;88: $1,139,978, 
Difference: $909,500 = 394.61% Rank: 25
    MBNA Corporation Formed:1991-;92, Total Raised, 
1991-;92: $184,764, Total Raised, 1995-;96: $903,599, 
Difference: $718,835 = 389.06% Rank: 26
    MCI Telecommunications Corporation Formed:1983-;84, Total 
Raised, 1993=94: $104,688, Total Raised, 1997-;98: $510,195, 
Difference: $405,507 = 387.35% Rank: 27
    Smith Barney & Company Formed:1979-;80, Total Raised, 
1995-;96: $128,843, Total Raised, 1999-;00: $627,332, 
Difference: $498,489 = 386.90% Rank: 28
    Chrysler / Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. Formed:1979-;80, 
Total Raised, 1981-;82: $77,152, Total Raised, 1985-;86: 
$373,792, Difference: $296,640 = 384.49% Rank: 29
    American Information Technologies Corp. Formed:1983-;84, 
Total Raised, 1987-;88: $105,465, Total Raised, 1991-;92: 
$501,210, Difference: $395,745 = 375.24% Rank: 30 Waste Management, 
Inc. Formed:1979-;80, Total Raised, 1983-;84: $138,076, 
Total Raised, 1987-;88: $653,361, Difference: $515,285 = 
373.19% Rank: 31
    Texas Air Corp. Formed:1979-;80, Total Raised, 
1981-;82: $53,560, Total Raised, 1985-;86: $252,847, 
Difference: $199,287 = 372.08% Rank: 32
    Federal Express Corporation Formed:1983-;84, Total Raised, 
1985-;86: $334,334, Total Raised, 1989-;90: $1,561,744, 
Difference: $1,227,410 = 367.12% Rank: 33
    Drexel Burnham Lambert Group, Inc. Formed:1981-;82, Total 
Raised, 1983-;84: $66,844, Total Raised, 1987-;88: 
$310,188, Difference: $243,344 = 364.05% Rank: 34
    Dow Chemical, USA--;HQ Formed:1979-;80, Total Raised, 
1995-;96: $60,290, Total Raised, 1999-;00: $279,618, 
Difference: $219,328 = 363.79% Rank: 35
    General Telephone & Electronics Corp. Formed:1979-;80, 
Total Raised, 1987-;88: $169,871, Total Raised, 1991-;92: 
$779,782, Difference: $609,911 = 359.04% Rank: 36
    NationsBank Formed:1979-;80, Total Raised, 1987-;88: 
$238,405, Total Raised, 1991-;92: $1,094,012, Difference: 
$855,607 = 358.89% Rank: 37
    CSX Corp.--;Jeffboat Formed:1981-;82, Total Raised, 
1995-;96: $66,789, Total Raised, 1999-;00: $303,763, 
Difference: $236,974 = 354.81% Rank: 38
    Sears Roebuck & Co. (Allstate) Formed:1979-;80, Total 
Raised, 1981-;82: $50,277, Total Raised, 1985-;86: 
$223,313, Difference: $173,036 = 344.17% Rank: 39
    First Union Corporation Formed:1983-;84, Total Raised, 
1995-;96: $119,980, Total Raised, 1999-;00: $525,262, 
Difference: $405,282 = 337.79% Rank: 40
    Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. Formed:1979-;80, Total 
Raised, 1991-;92: $117,271, Total Raised, 1995-;96: 
$512,562, Difference: $395,291 = 337.07% Rank: 41
    Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc. Formed:1991-;92, Total Raised, 
1993=94: $54,312, Total Raised, 1997-;98: $232,861, Difference: 
$178,549 = 328.75% Rank: 42
    Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company Formed:1979-;80, Total 
Raised, 1989-;90: $74,612, Total Raised, 1993=94: $319,846, 
Difference: $245,234 = 328.68% Rank: 43
    Chase Manhattan Bank Formed:1979-;80, Total Raised, 
1983-;84: $64,813, Total Raised, 1987-;88: $274,828, 
Difference: $210,015 = 324.03% Rank: 44
    Raytheon Company Formed:1979-;80, Total Raised, 
1979-;80: $54,158, Total Raised, 1983-;84: $228,899, 
Difference: $174,741 = 322 65% Rank: 45
    Manufacturers Hanover Corporation Formed:1979-;80, Total 
Raised, 1979-;80: $69,178, Total Raised, 1983-;84: 
$291,068, Difference: $221,890 = 320.75% Rank: 46
    Tenneco, Inc. Formed:1979-;80, Total Raised, 1991-;92: 
$208,019, Total Raised, 1995-;96: $866,590, Difference: 
$658,571 = 316.59% Rank: 47
    Loral Systems Group Formed:1985-;86, Total Raised, 
1989-;90: $86,215, Total Raised, 1993=94: $358,895, Difference: 
$272,680 = 316.28% Rank: 48
    Koch Industries, Inc. Formed:1989-;90, Total Raised, 
1993=94: $202,392, Total Raised, 1997-;98: $831,184, 
Difference: $628,792 = 310.68% Rank: 49
    Koch Industries, Inc. Formed:1989-;90, Total Raised, 
1991-;92: $104,401, Total Raised, 1995-;96: $428,074, 
Difference: $323,673 = 310.03% Rank: 50
    Bellsouth Corporation Formed:1983-;84, Total Raised, 
1985-;86: $70,383, Total Raised, 1989-;90: $287,836, 
Difference: $217,453 = 308.96% Rank: 51
    Rockwell International Corporation Formed:1979-;80, Total 
Raised, 1979-;80: $123,700, Total Raised, 1983-;84: 
$497,473, Difference: $373,773 = 302.16% Rank: 52
    Safari Club International Formed:1979-;80, Total Raised, 
1993=94: $94,149, Total Raised, 1997-;98: $378,078, Difference: 
$283,929 = 301.57% Rank: 53
    RJR Nabisco, Inc. Formed:1979-;80, Total Raised, 
1981-;82: $64,199, Total Raised, 1985-;86: $256,498, 
Difference: $192,299 = 299.54% Rank: 54
    American Information Technologies Corp. Formed:1983-;84, 
Total Raised, 1985-;86: $58,487, Total Raised, 1989-;90: 
$233,266, Difference: $174,779 = 298.83% Rank: 55
    Southern Company Formed:1981-;82, Total Raised, 
1995-;96: $125,656, Total Raised, 1999-;00: $497,118, 
Difference: $371,462 = 295.62% Rank: 56
    Lucent Technologies, Inc. Formed:1995-;96, Total Raised, 
1995-;96: $87,568, Total Raised, 1999-;00: $343,462, 
Difference: $255,894 = 292.22% Rank: 57
    Fluor Corporation Formed:1979-;80, Total Raised, 
1985-;86: $126,081, Total Raised, 1989-;90: $494,417, 
Difference: $368,336 = 292.14% Rank: 58
    Central & South West Services, Inc. Formed:1979-;80, 
Total Raised, 1993=94: $57,841, Total Raised, 1997-;98: 
$226,201, Difference: $168,360 = 291.07% Rank: 59
    HSBC Americas / Marine Midland Banks Formed:1981-;82, Total 
Raised, 1983-;84: $52,071, Total Raised, 1987-;88: 
$200,106, Difference: $148,035 = 284.29% Rank: 60
    Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. Formed:1981-;82, Total 
Raised, 1995-;96: $127,472, Total Raised, 1999-;00: 
$488,875, Difference: $361,403 = 283.52% Rank: 61

[[Page 28399]]

    Banc One Corporation Formed:1979-;80, Total Raised, 
1989-;90: $270,704, Total Raised, 1993=94: $1,037,361, 
Difference: $766,657 = 283.21% Rank: 62
    Archer-Daniels-Midland Company Formed:1979-;80, Total 
Raised, 1979-;80: $50,369, Total Raised, 1983-;84: 
$192,426, Difference: $142,057 = 282.03% Rank: 63
    Aetna Life and Casualty Company Formed:1983-;84, Total 
Raised, 1983-;84: $88,329, Total Raised, 1987-;88: 
$333,008, Difference: $244,679 = 277.01% Rank: 64
    Outback Steakhouse, Inc. Formed:1991-;92, Total Raised, 
1993=94: $230,022, Total Raised, 1997-;98: $865,042, 
Difference: $635,020 = 276.07% Rank: 65
    Lockheed Corporation Formed:1979-;80, Total Raised, 
1979-;80: $136,127, Total Raised, 1983-;84: $511,131, 
Difference: $375,004 = 275.48% Rank: 66
    Duke Power Company Formed:1979-;80, Total Raised, 
1995-;96: $69,970, Total Raised, 1999-;00: $261,562, 
Difference: $191,592 = 273.82% Rank: 67
    TRW, Inc. Formed:1979-;80, Total Raised, 1979-;80: 
$69,121,
    Total Raised, 1983-;84: $256,296
    Difference: $187,175 = 270.79% Rank: 68
    United Telecommunications, Inc. Formed:1979-;80
    Total Raised, 1983-;84: $66,922
    Total Raised, 1987-;88: $247,495
    Difference: $180,573 = 269.83% Rank: 69
    Loral Systems Group Formed:1985-;86
    Total Raised, 1987-;88: $55,311
    Total Raised, 1991-;92: $202,887
    Difference: $147,576 = 266.81% Rank: 70
    American General Corporation Formed:1979-;80
    Total Raised, 1995-;96: $182,254
    Total Raised, 1999-;00: $668,062
    Difference: $485,808 = 266.56% Rank: 71
    Phillips Petroleum Company Formed:1979-;80
    Total Raised, 1983-;84: $99,365
    Total Raised, 1987-;88: $364,141
    Difference: $264,776 = 266.47% Rank: 72
    Entergy Operations, Inc. Formed:1989-;90
    Total Raised, 1993=94: $64,650
    Total Raised, 1997-;98: $236,109
    Difference: $171,459 = 265.21% Rank: 73
    American Information Technologies Corporation 
Formed:1979-;80
    Total Raised, 1983-;84: $68,916
    Total Raised, 1987-;88: $249,574
    Difference: $180,658 = 262.14% Rank: 74
    Sea-Land Corporation Formed:1979-;80
    Total Raised, 1987-;88: $52,291
    Total Raised, 1991-;92: $189,284
    Difference: $136,993 = 261.98% Rank: 75
    First City Bancorporation of Texas, Inc. Formed:1979-;80
    Total Raised, 1979-;80: $85,372
    Total Raised, 1983-;84: $307,649
    Difference: $222,277 = 260.36% Rank: 76
    Banc One Corporation Formed:1979-;80
    Total Raised, 1987-;88: $173,949
    Total Raised, 1991-;92: $622,458
    Difference: $448,509 = 257.84% Rank: 77
    E1 Paso Company Formed:1979-;80
    Total Raised, 1993=94: $74,169
    Total Raised, 1997-;98: $264,338
    Difference: $190,169 = 256.40% Rank: 78
    Dow Chemical, USA Formed:1979-;80
    Total Raised, 1985-;86: $77,017
    Total Raised, 1989-;90: $274,424
    Difference: $197,407 = 256.32% Rank: 79
    Timken Company Formed:1995-;96
    Total Raised, 1995-;96: $79,717
    Total Raised, 1999-;00: $277,044
    Difference: $197,327 = 247.53% Rank: 80
    Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. Formed:1979-;80
    Total Raised, 1981-;82: $54,650
    Total Raised, 1985-;86: $189,822
    Difference: $135,172 = 247.34% Rank: 81
    National City Corporation Formed:1981-;82
    Total Raised, 1983-;84: $59,921
    Total Raised, 1987-;88: $207,361
    Difference: $147,440 = 246.06% Rank: 82
    Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Formed:1979-;80
    Total Raised, 1989-;90: $56,535
    Total Raised, 1993=94: $195,579
    Difference: $139,044 = 245.94% Rank: 83
    Eastern Airlines, Inc. Formed:1979-;80
    Total Raised, 1983-;84: $70,676
    Total Raised, 1987-;88: $243,529
    Difference: $172,853 = 244.57% Rank: 84
    Heublein, Inc. Formed:1979-;80
    Total Raised, 1985-;86: $52,292
    Total Raised, 1989-;90: $178,944
    Difference: $126,652 = 242.20% Rank: 85
    Salomon Brothers, Inc. Formed:1981-;82
    Total Raised, 1981-;82: $106,250
    Total Raised, 1985-;86: $363,500
    Difference: $257,250 = 242.12% Rank: 86
    First Bank System, Inc. Formed:1979-;80
    Total Raised, 1995-;96: $85,349
    Total Raised, 1999-;00: $290,311
    Difference: $204,962 = 240.15% Rank: 87
    Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company Formed:1979-;80
    Total Raised, 1993=94: $54,504
    Total Raised, 1997-;98: $185,093
    Difference: $130,589 = 239.60% Rank: 88
    North Carolina National Bank Corp. Formed:1979-;80
    Total Raised, 1979-;80: $79,627
    Total Raised, 1983-;84: $269,718
    Difference: $190,091 = 238.73% Rank: 89
    Caterpillar Tractor Company Formed:1981-;82
    Total Raised, 1985-;86: $65,232
    Total Raised, 1989-;90: $219,844
    Difference: $154,612 = 237.02% Rank: 90
    Lehman Brothers Kuhn Loec, Inc. Formed:1979-;80
    Total Raised, 1979-;80: $51,400
    Total Raised, 1983-;84: $171,973
    Difference: $120,573 = 234.58% Rank: 91
    Northrop Corporation Formed:1979-;80
    Total Raised, 1979-;80: $86,250
    Total Raised, 1983-;84: $288,361
    Difference: $202,111 = 234.33% Rank: 92
    GMC Electronic Data Systems Corporation Formed:1979-;80
    Total Raised, 1987-;88: $116,315
    Total Raised, 1991-;92: $388,257
    Difference: $271,942 = 233.80% Rank: 93
    Textron, Inc. Formed:1979-;80
    Total Raised, 1981-;82: $116,552
    Total Raised, 1985-;86: $388,852
    Difference: $272,300 = 233.63% Rank: 94
    Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. Formed:1979-;80
    Total Raised, 1987-;88: $203,554
    Total Raised, 1991-;92: $678,024
    Difference: $474,470 = 233.09% Rank: 95
    United Parcel Service of America, Inc. Formed:1979-;80
    Total Raised, 1983-;84: $272,659
    Total Raised, 1987-;88: $905,482
    Difference: $632,823 = 232.09% Rank: 96
    Gun Owners of America (gun control foes) Formed:1991-;92
    Total Raised, 1995-;96: $93,086
    Total Raised, 1999-;00: $309,050
    Difference: $215,964 = 232.00% Rank: 97
    Dun & Bradstreet Corporation Formed:1979-;80
    Total Raised, 1981-;82: $51,577
    Total Raised, 1985-;86: $169,954
    Difference: $118,377 = 229.52% Rank: 98
    J. C. Penney Company, Inc. Formed:1979-;80
    Total Raised, 1981-;82: $91,484
    Total Raised, 1985-;86: $301,185
    Difference: $209,701 = 229.22% Rank: 99
    United Parcel Service of America, Inc. Formed:1979-;80
    Total Raised, 1985-;86: $567,328
    Total Raised, 1989-;90: $1,865,785
    Difference: $1,298,457 = 228.87% Rank: 100
    Source: Computer analysis by Sunshine Press Services of Federal
    Election Commission data, Jan. 1, 1979 through Dec. 31, 2000.
    Table 5. Rapid Rises in Corporate PAC Spending, 1979-;2002
    (After Spending More than $250,000)
    Microsoft Corporation Formed: 1987-;88
    Total Spent, 1997-;98: $267,500
    Total Spent, 1999-;00: $1,221,730
    Difference: $954,230 = 356.72% Rank: 1
    Federal Express Corporation Formed: 1983-;84
    Total Spent, 1985-;86: $392,441
    Total Spent, 1987-;88: $1,093,998
    Difference: $701,557 = 178.77% Rank: 2
    Compass Bancshares, Inc. Formed: 1983-;84
    Total Spent, 1991-;92: $363,617
    Total Spent, 1993=94: $974,893
    Difference: $611,276 = 168.11% Rank: 3
    Metropolitan Life Insurance Company Formed: 1979-;80
    Total Spent, 1997-;98: $310,633
    Total Spent, 1999-;00: $815,624
    Difference: $504,991 = 162.57% Rank: 4
    Bell Atlantic Corp. Formed: 1983-;84
    Total Spent, 1995-;96: $388,073
    Total Spent, 1997-;98: $1,006,783
    Difference: $618,710 = 159.43% Rank: 5
    Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Inc. Formed: 1995-;96
    Total Spent, 1997-;98: $359,408
    Total Spent, 1999-;00: $914,501
    Difference: $555,093 = 154.45% Rank: 6
    RJR Nabisco, Inc. Formed: 1979-;80
    Total Spent, 1987-;88: $348,897
    Total Spent, 1989-;90: $872,626
    Difference: $523,729 = 150.11% Rank: 7
    Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. Formed: 
1979-;80
    Total Spent, 1989-;90: $265,096
    Total Spent, 1991-;92: $650,905
    Difference: $385,809 = 145.54% Rank: 8
    American Information Technologies Corp. Formed: 1983-;84
    Total Spent, 1991-;92: $518,442
    Total Spent, 1993=94: $1,207,881
    Difference: $689,439 = 132.98% Rank: 9
    Tenneco, Inc. Formed: 1979-;80
    Total Spent, 1993=94: $380,688
    Total Spent, 1995-;96: $860,515
    Difference: $479,827 = 126.04% Rank: 10
    Banc One Corporation Formed: 1979-;80

[[Page 28400]]

    Total Spent, 1991-;92: $421,467
    Total Spent, 1993=94: $934,434
    Difference: $512,967 = 121.71% Rank: 11
    American General Corporation Formed: 1979-;80
    Total Spent, 1997-;98: $291,488
    Total Spent, 1999-;00: $634,510
    Difference: $343,022 = 117.68% Rank: 12
    Boeing Company Formed: 1981-;82
    Total Spent, 1995-;96: $370,105
    Total Spent, 1997-;98: $759,495
    Difference: $389,390 = 105.21% Rank: 13
    MBNA Corporation Formed: 1991-;92
    Total Spent, 1993=94: $403,796
    Total Spent, 1995-;96: $825,974
    Difference: $422,178 = 104.55% Rank: 14
    Compass Bancshares, Inc. Formed: 1983-;84
    Total Spent, 1995-;96: $729,612
    Total Spent, 1997-;98: $1,468,094
    Difference: $738,482 = 101.22% Rank: 15
    Southtrust Corporation Formed: 1979-;80
    Total Spent, 1995-;96: $266,593
    Total Spent, 1997-;98: $530,794
    Difference: $264,201 = 99.10% Rank: 16
    FirstEnergy Corp. (Ohio Edison) Formed: 1981-;82
    Total Spent, 1997-;98: $253,675
    Total Spent, 1999-;00: $502,890
    Difference: $249,215 = 98.24% Rank: 17
    Koch Industries, Inc. Formed: 1989-;90
    Total Spent, 1995-;96: $428,664
    Total Spent, 1997-;98: $807,318
    Difference: $378,654 = 88.33% Rank: 18
    Northrop Corporation Formed: 1979-;80
    Total Spent, 1993=94: $422,969
    Total Spent, 1995-;96: $794,880
    Difference: $371,911 = 87.93% Rank: 19
    J.P. Morgan & Company, Inc. Formed: 1979-;80
    Total Spent, 1985-;86: $262,250
    Total Spent, 1987-;88: $492,681
    Difference: $230,431 = 87.87% Rank: 20
    Philip Morris, Inc. Formed: 1979-;80
    Total Spent, 1983-;84: $403,699
    Total Spent, 1985-;86: $754,949
    Difference: $351,250 = 87.01% Rank: 21
    Eli Lilly & Company Formed: 1979-;80
    Total Spent, 1995-;96: $375,583
    Total Spent, 1997-;98: $700,580
    Difference: $324,997 = 86.53% Rank: 22
    Southwestern Bell Corporation Formed: 1979-;80
    Total Spent, 1993=94: $365,700
    Total Spent, 1995-;96: $674,857
    Difference: $309,157 = 84.54% Rank: 23
    Rockwell International Corporation Formed: 1979-;80
    Total Spent, 1981-;82: $266,688
    Total Spent, 1983-;84: $490,541
    Difference: $223,853 = 83.94% Rank: 24
    United Parcel Service of America, Inc. Formed: 1979-;80
    Total Spent, 1991-;92: $1,835,231
    Total Spent, 1993=94: $3,350,884
    Difference: $1,515,653 = 82.59% Rank: 25
    General Telephone & Electronics Corp. Formed: 1979-;80
    Total Spent, 1989-;90: $420,131
    Total Spent, 1991-;92: $765,805
    Difference: $345,674 = 82.28% Rank: 26 United Parcel Service of 
America, Inc. Formed: 1979-;80
    Total Spent, 1985-;86: $522,514
    Total Spent, 1987-;88: $943,815
    Difference: $421,301 = 80.63% Rank: 27
    Waste Management, Inc. Formed: 1979-;80
    Total Spent, 1985-;86: $341,975
    Total Spent, 1987-;88: $615,059
    Difference: $273,084 = 79.85% Rank: 28
    Houston Industries, Inc. Formed: 1979-;80
    Total Spent, 1983-;84: $256,353
    Total Spent, 1985-;86: $460,684
    Difference: $204,331 = 79.71% Rank: 29
    Cigna Corporation Formed: 1979-;80
    Total Spent, 1997-;98: $352,512
    Total Spent, 1999-;00: $624,736
    Difference: $272,224 = 77.22% Rank: 30
    United Parcel Service of America, Inc. Formed: 1979-;80
    Total Spent, 1987-;88: $943,815
    Total Spent, 1989-;90: $1,658,366
    Difference: $714,551 = 75.71% Rank: 31
    Black America's PAC Formed: 1995-;96
    Total Spent, 1995-;96: $1,899,486
    Total Spent, 1997-;98: $3,337,602
    Difference: $1,438,116 = 75.71% Rank: 32
    Chase Manhattan Corporation Formed: 1979-;80
    Total Spent, 1989-;90: $274,760
    Total Spent, 1991-;92: $481,894
    Difference: $207,134 = 75.39% Rank: 33
    Barnett Banks of Florida, Inc. Formed: 1979-;80
    Total Spent, 1985-;86: $304,230
    Total Spent, 1987-;88: $532,509
    Difference: $228,279 = 75.04% Rank: 34
    Bankamerica Corporation Formed: 1981-;82
    Total Spent, 1993=94: $311,633
    Total Spent, 1995-;96: $535,516
    Difference: $223,883 = 71.84% Rank: 35
    NationsBank Formed: 1979-;80
    Total Spent, 1997-;98: $607,578
    Total Spent, 1999-;00: $1,041,837
    Difference: $434,259 = 71.47% Rank: 36
    United Technologies Corporation Formed: 1979-;80
    Total Spent, 1993=94: $263,300
    Total Spent, 1995-;96: $450,078
    Difference: $186,778 = 70.94% Rank: 37
    Southwestern Bell Corporation Formed: 1979-;80
    Total Spent, 1997-;98: $961,990
    Total Spent, 1999-;00: $1,642,657
    Difference: $680,667 = 70.76% Rank: 38
    Lockheed Corporation Formed: 1979-;80
    Total Spent, 1991-;92: $422,512
    Total Spent, 1993=94: $708,346
    Difference: $285,834 = 67.65% Rank: 39
    Union Pacific Corporation Formed: 1979-;80
    Total Spent, 1985-;86: $296,938
    Total Spent, 1987-;88: $495,482
    Difference: $198,544 = 66.86% Rank: 40
    Household Finance Corporation Formed: 1979-;80
    Total Spent, 1989-;90: $270,795
    Total Spent, 1991-;92: $444,889
    Difference: $174,094 = 64.29% Rank: 41
    Sierra Club (environmentalist) Formed: 1979-;80
    Total Spent, 1997-;98: $441,208
    Total Spent, 1999-;00: $721,429
    Difference: $280,221 = 63.51% Rank: 42
    Westinghouse Electric Corp. Formed: 1979-;80
    Total Spent, 1987-;88: $264,890
    Total Spent, 1989-;90: $431,697
    Difference: $166,807 = 62.97% Rank: 43
    American Telephone & Telegraph Co. Formed: 1983-;84
    Total Spent, 1985-;86: $1,744,301
    Total Spent, 1987-;88: $2,841,464
    Difference: $1,097,163 = 62.90% Rank: 44
    General Motors Corporation Formed: 1979-;80
    Total Spent, 1993=94: $477,782
    Total Spent, 1995-;96: $777,521
    Difference: $299,739 = 62.74% Rank: 45
    Keycorp Formed: 1979-;80
    Total Spent, 1995-;96: $376,200
    Total Spent, 1997-;98: $611,975
    Difference: $235,775 = 62.67% Rank: 46
    Union Pacific Corporation Formed: 1979-;80
    Total Spent, 1989-;90: $731,974
    Total Spent, 1991-;92: $1,188,407
    Difference: $456,433 = 62.36% Rank: 47
    Sierra Club (environmentalist) Formed: 1979-;80
    Total Spent, 1987-;88: $299,891
    Total Spent, 1989-;90: $486,795
    Difference: $186,904 = 62.32% Rank: 48
    Chrysler / Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. Formed: 1979-;80
    Total Spent, 1993=94: $417,015
    Total Spent, 1995-;96: $659,369
    Difference: $242,354 = 58.12% Rank: 49
    Pfizer, Inc. Formed: 1979-;80
    Total Spent, 1997-;98: $536,471
    Total Spent, 1999-;00: $844,132
    Difference: $307,661 = 57.35% Rank: 50
    Chase Manhattan Bank Formed: 1979-;80
    Total Spent, 1989-;90: $269,299
    Total Spent, 1991-;92: $423,632
    Difference: $154,333 = 57.31% Rank: 51
    Sierra Club (environmentalist) Formed: 1979-;80
    Total Spent, 1993=94: $431,725
    Total Spent, 1995-;96: $677,883
    Difference: $246,158 = 57.02% Rank: 52
    Banc One Corporation Formed: 1979-;80
    Total Spent, 1989-;90: $269,833
    Total Spent, 1991-;92: $421,467
    Difference: $151,634 = 56.20% Rank: 53
    Raytheon Company Formed: 1979-;80
    Total Spent, 1995-;96: $385,863
    Total Spent, 1997-;98: $601,994
    Difference: $216,131 = 56.01% Rank: 54
    Eli Lilly & Company Formed: 1979-;80
    Total Spent, 1997-;98: $700,580
    Total Spent, 1999-;00: $1,089,599
    Difference: $389,019 = 55.53% Rank: 55
    Chrysler / Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. Formed: 1979-;80
    Total Spent, 1995-;96: $659,369
    Total Spent, 1997-;98: $1,021,714
    Difference: $362,345 = 54.95% Rank: 56
    Amsouth Bancorporation Formed: 1983-;84
    Total Spent, 1997-;98: $304,524
    Total Spent, 1999-;00: $470,782
    Difference: $166,258 = 54.60% Rank: 57
    Glaxo, Inc. Formed: 1985-;86
    Total Spent, 1997-;98: $716,634
    Total Spent, 1999-;00: $1,104,801
    Difference: $388,167 = 54.17% Rank: 58
    Crawford Group / Enterprise Leasing Formed: 1987-;88
    Total Spent, 1993=94: $253,769
    Total Spent, 1995-;96: $391,094
    Difference: $137,325 = 54.11% Rank: 59
    Associates Corp. (Ford Motor Co.) Formed: 1989-;90
    Total Spent, 1995-;96: $342,269
    Total Spent, 1997-;98: $526,937
    Difference: $184,668 = 53.95% Rank: 60
    Morgan Stanley & Company, Inc. Formed: 1979-;80

[[Page 28401]]

    Total Spent, 1985-;86: $303,919
    Total Spent, 1987-;88: $465,992
    Difference: $162,073 = 53.33% Rank: 61
    Houston Industries, Inc. Formed: 1979-;80
    Total Spent, 1995-;96: $470,646
    Total Spent, 1997-;98: $720,544
    Difference: $249,898 = 53.10% Rank: 62
    Outback Steakhouse, Inc. Formed: 1991-;92
    Total Spent, 1997-;98: $636,741
    Total Spent, 1999-;00: $974,275 Difference: $337,534 = 
53.01% Rank: 63
    Household Finance Corporation Formed: 1979-;80
    Total Spent, 1997-;98: $512,016
    Total Spent, 1999-;00: $782,819
    Difference: $270,803 = 52.89% Rank: 64
    General Motors Corp. / Hughes Aircraft Formed: 1979-;80
    Total Spent, 1985-;86: $271,290
    Total Spent, 1987-;88: $412,181
    Difference: $140,891 = 51.93% Rank: 65
    American Airlines Formed: 1979-;80
    Total Spent, 1991-;92: $282,647
    Total Spent, 1993=94: $426,852
    Difference: $144,205 = 51.02% Rank: 66
    Cooper Industries, Inc. Formed: 1979-;80
    Total Spent, 1989-;90: $264,213
    Total Spent, 1991-;92: $397,960
    Difference: $133,747 = 50.62% Rank: 67
    Flowers Industries, Inc. Formed: 1979-;80
    Total Spent, 1993=94: $254,819
    Total Spent, 1995-;96: $383,269
    Difference: $128,450 = 50.41% Rank: 68
    Source: Computer analysis by Sunshine Press Services of Federal
    Election Commission data, Jan. 1, 1979 through Dec. 31,2000.
    APPENDIX B: Publication List
    The news organizations listed below have published news reports 
or commentary by Edward Roeder
    Daily Newspapers
    Albuquerque Journal
    Arizona Republic
    Arkansas Gazette-Democrat
    Atlanta Constitution *
    Austin American-Statesman
    Baltimore Sun *
    Boston Globe *
    Chicago Sun-Times *
    Chicago Tribune *
    Cleveland Plain Dealer
    Dallas Morning News
    Denver Post
    Deseret News
    Detroit Free Press*
    Detroit News *
    Florida Today
    Fort Lauderdale News & Sun-Sentinel *
    Greensboro News & Record *
    Kansas City Star
    Los Angeles Times
    Louisville Courier-Journal *
    Miami Herald *
    Nashville Tennessean
    New Orleans Times-Picayune
    New York Daily News
    New York Newsday
    New York Times *
    Orlando Sentinel *
    Philadelphia Inquirer *
    Portland Oregonian
    Providence Journal
    Richmond Times-Dispatch
    Sacramento Bee *
    San Jose Mercury News
    Seattle Post-lntelligencer
    Seattle Times *
    St. Louis Post-Dispatch *
    St. Petersburg Times *
    Tampa Tribune
    USA Today
    Washington Post *
    Washington Times
    Articles ran on page 1 or led Sunday section
    Periodicals
    American Banker *
    Capital Style
    Conservative Digest *
    Free Inquiry *
    Monthly Business Review *
    MS. *
    New Republic *
    New Times *
    Newsweek
    Playboy *
    Politics Today *
    Rolling Stone *
    Saturday Review *
    Sierra *
    Space Business International *
    The Nation *
    Time
    Village Voice *
    Washington Monthly *
    Washingtonian *
    Bylined feature magazine articles
    Broadcast
    ABC News (TV) *
    CBS News (TV) *
    CNN *
    Canadian Broadcast'g Co. (Radio) *
    KABC-TV (Hollywood, CA) *
    National Public Radio *
    Nightline (ABC News- TV) *
    NBC News (TV & Radio)
    20-;20 (ABC News- TV)
    WBAL-TV (Baltimore, MD)
    WDIV-TV (Detroit, Mich.) *
    WJLA-TV (Washington, DC) *
    WJXT-TV (Jacksonville, Fla.) *
    WJZ-TV (Baltimore, MD)
    WPLG-TV (Miami, Fla.) *
    WRC-TV (Washington, DC)
    WTVT-TV (Tampa, Fla.) *
    WUSA-TV (Washington, DC) *
    * Paid on-air appearanc(s)



MTC-00028685

From: David Robinson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I disagree with the PFJ because it does not end Microsoft's 
monopoly but may allow MS to extend and expand its monopoly! 
Enforcement of the PFJ appears nearly impossible to enforce.
    Thank you for considering my opinions.
    Dave Robinson
    407-;843-;3294, ext 227



MTC-00028686

From: Brooke Emmerick
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 4'58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    BEFORE THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 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 of The Progress & Freedom Foundation on the Revised 
Proposed Final Judgment and the Competitive Impact Statement
    Jeffery A. Eisenach, Ph.D.
    President
    Thomas M. Lenard, Ph.D.
    Vice President for Research
    THE PROGRESS & FREEDOM FOUNDATION
    1301 K. St., NW
    Washington, DC 20005
    (202) 289-;8928
    (202) 289-;6079 Facsimile
    Table of Contents
    I. Introduction 1
    A. Authors 1
    B. Summary of Contents 2
    II. Background: The Facts, the Law and the Remedy 5
    A. The Illegal Conduct and Its Effects 5
    B. The Appropriate Criteria for a Remedial Action 7
    III. The CIS and the PFJ: Flawed Analysis of a Flawed Remedy 9
    A. Major Provisions of the PFJ 9
    B. The Competitive Impact Statement 10
    C. The PFJ Will Not Have Its Claimed Effect, Nor Any Pro-
Competitive Effect 18
    IV. The Remedies Alternatives 23
    A. Alternative Structural Remedies 24
    B. The Litigating States Proposal 29
    V. Conclusion 31
    I. Introduction
    These comments on the Proposed Final Judgment\1\ 
(``PFJ'') and the Competitive Impact Statement\2\ 
(``CIS'') in the Microsoft case are submitted to provide 
the Department of Justice (``DOJ'') and the Court with 
information and analysis based on nearly five years of research by 
the authors on the legal, policy and economic implications of this 
landmark proceeding. Based on that research, it is our assessment 
that (a) the PFJ fails to address meaningfully the violations of law 
found by this court and upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals and its 
entry by the court manifestly is not in the public interest; (b) the 
CIS fails to meet the standard of analysis demanded by the law and 
occasioned by the magnitude of the issues involved; and (c) the 
public interest will best be served through imposition of a 
``hybrid'' structural remedy or, if the court chooses not 
to impose a structural remedy, a conduct remedy modeled after the 
proposals of the remaining litigating states.
    A. The Authors
    Dr. Eisenach is President and Senior Fellow at The Progress 
& Freedom

[[Page 28402]]

Foundation,\3\ a non-profit research and educational institution 
dedicated to analyzing the impact of the digital revolution and its 
implications for public policy, and an Adjunct Professor at George 
Mason University Law School. As a professional economist, he has 
been actively engaged in the analysis of competition and regulatory 
policy issues for more than 20 years, and has served in senior 
positions at the Office of Management and Budget and the U.S. 
Federal Trade Commission and as a consultant to the U.S. Sentencing 
Commission on criminal sentencing guidelines for corporations. He 
has also served on the faculties of Harvard University's Kennedy 
School of Government, the University of Virginia and Virginia 
Polytechnic Institute and State University.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\United States v. Microsoft Corp., Stipulation and 
Revised Proposed Final Judgement (November 6, 2001) (hereafter 
``PFJ'').
    \2\United States v. Microsoft Corp., Competitive Impact 
Statement (November 15, 2001) (hereafter ``CIS'').
    \3\These comments reflect the views of the authors and do 
not represent the views of The Progress & Freedom Foundation, 
its officers or board of directors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dr. Lenard is Vice President and Senior Fellow at The Progress 
& Freedom Foundation and a professional economist with 30 years 
of experience in academia, government, private consulting and the 
non-profit sector. He has worked on a wide range of regulatory and 
antitrust issues covering a broad span of industries, and has 
consulted on antitrust cases for both private firms and the Federal 
Trade Commission. In government, he has held senior economic 
positions at the Council on Wage and Price Stability, the Office of 
Management and Budget and the Federal Trade Commission. A principal 
focus of his research has been the benefits and costs of regulatory 
interventions into the economy and the analytical underpinnings 
needed to make informed decisions about government interventions. 
Both Drs. Eisenach and Lenard have done extensive work on the 
economics of high-tech markets in general, and the Microsoft case in 
particular. They are co-authors of the annual Digital Economy Fact 
Book,\4\ co-editors of Competition, Innovation and the Microsoft 
Monopoly: Antitrust in the Digital Marketplace and authors of 
numerous other papers on these and related topics.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\See Jeffrey A. Eisenach, Thomas M. Lenard and Stephen 
McGonegal, The Digital Economy Fact Book 2001 (Washington: The 
Progress & Freedom Foundation, 2001).
    \5\See Jeffrey A. Eisenach and Thomas M. Lenard, eds., 
Competition, Innovation and the Microsoft Monopoly: Antitrust in the 
Digital Marketplace, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999; Thomas M. 
Lenard, Creating Competition in the Market for Operating Systems: A 
Structural Remedy for Microsoft, (Washington: The Progress & 
Freedom Foundation, 2000), http://www.pff.org/remedies/htm; and 
Thomas M. Lenard, ``Creating Competition in the Market
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    B. Summary of Comments
    The PFJ is intended to settle the government's antitrust case 
against Microsoft and was agreed to by the United States, 9 of the 
18 states that were also party to suit, and by Microsoft. The nine 
remaining states and the District of Columbia (the ``Litigating 
States'') have not agreed to the PFJ and are pursuing more 
stringent relief through a remedy hearing at the District Court.\6\ 
The DOJ is required by the Antitrust Procedures and Penalty Act 
(``APPA'')\7\ to prepare a CIS, which is intended to 
analyze the competitive implications of the PFJ and any alternatives 
to it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\United States v. Microsoft Corp., Plaintiff Litigating 
States'' Remedial Proposals, (December 7, 2001) (hereafter 
``LS Proposal'').
    \7\15 USCS 16 (b-h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The PFJ does not serve the public interest and will not achieve 
the government's objective that it ``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.``\8\ Indeed, much of the behavior 
found by the Court of Appeals to be anticompetitive would be 
permitted under the PFJ. Further, even if the PFJ did preclude such 
behavior it would fail to restore competitive conditions because it 
fails to affect the behavior of participants in the marketplace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\CIS at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CIS does not satisfy the government's obligation to provide 
the District Court with an analytical basis for determining whether 
the PFJ is in the public interest. The APPA clearly requires, and 
good public policy demands, an ``evaluation'' of the 
proposed remedy and major alternatives to it. The CIS does not 
present such an evaluation. It does not explain why the PFJ will 
achieve the intended results, but merely asserts that it will do so. 
It also does not explain why the DOJ concluded that the PFJ will 
better serve the public interest than major alternatives, but merely 
states that ``[t]he United States ultimately concluded that the 
requirements and prohibitions set forth in the Proposed Final 
Judgment provided the most effective and certain relief in the most 
timely manner.``\9\ The DOJ has produced no real 
analysis of the relative merits for Operating Systems: Alternative 
Structural Remedies in the Microsoft Case,'' George Mason Law 
Review, Vol., 9, Spring 2001, 803-;841. of alternative forms of 
relief to guide the District Court in deciding whether to approve 
the PFJ. Indeed, the CIS fails by a wide margin to meet the 
standards required of analyses of regulatory proposals routinely 
promulgated by government agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\9 CIS at 63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the District Court should not accept the PFJ, but 
should, instead, expand its hearing on the Litigating States 
Proposal (``LS Proposal'') to include the full range of 
major alternatives. This would permit the District Court to gather 
the information needed to make an informed judgment concerning which 
of the remedy proposals will best serve the public interest. The 
alternatives that should be considered include:
    u The PFJ.
    u The proposals of the Litigating States.
    u Major structural remedies, including the vertical-divestiture 
remedy initially adopted by the District Court and the 
``hybrid'' remedy proposed by Dr. Lenard and others.
    Among these remedies, the ``hybrid'' structural 
approach would best serve the public interest and maximize net 
economic benefits to consumers.
    In the sections that follow, we provide, first, a brief 
restatement of the facts and legal background in this case, 
including a brief discussion of what we believe to be the 
appropriate standards by which remedial action should be judged. 
Next we discuss the shortcomings in the PFJ and the CIS, explaining 
why the PFJ will not achieve the government's objectives or serve 
the public interest and demonstrating that the CIS falls far short 
of the analytical standard that should be demanded by the court. 
Finally, we turn to an evaluation of the remedial alternatives and 
explain why we believe that (a) a ``hybrid'' structural 
remedy would best serve consumers and competition and (b) that if 
the court chooses not to impose a structural remedy, the LS Proposal 
is superior to the PFJ.
    II. Background: The Facts, the Law and the Remedy
    The U.S. District Court\10\ found, and the U.S. Court of 
Appeals\11\ affirmed, a pattern of Sherman Act violations by 
Microsoft that had the effect of foreclosing competition in the 
market for personal computer operating systems. The District Court 
ordered a structural remedy, which was overturned by the Appeals 
Court, which remanded the remedy issue back to this court. The 
Appeals Court did not prescribe or prohibit adoption of any 
particular remedial actions by this court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\United States v. Microsoft Corp., 84 F. Supp. 2d 9 
(DCCirc 1999) (``Findings of Fact'');United States v. 
Microsoft Corp., 87 F. Supp. 2d 30 (DC Circ. 2000) 
(``Conclusions of Law'').
    \11\United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F 3d, at 6 (DC 
Circ. 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A. The Illegal Conduct and Its Effects
    The Appeals Court unanimously affirmed the core of the 
government's case against Microsoft, finding that the company had 
undertaken a broad array of anticompetitive practices to maintain 
its monopoly in personal computer operating systems, in violation of 
Section 2 of the Sherman Act.\12\ Microsoft's strategy was to use 
its monopoly power to prevent the emergence of any new technology 
that might compete with Windows. Microsoft's anticompetitive 
activities were particularly directed against two products--;the 
Netscape browser and Sun's Java programming language--;that 
could support operating-system-neutral computing and thereby erode 
Microsoft's market position. In summary, the District Court found, 
and the Appeals Court affirmed, that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Microsoft has monopoly power in the market for Intel-compatible 
PC operating systems, with a market share of greater than 95 
percent. Microsoft's market is protected by a substantial barber to 
entry--;the ``applications barrier to 
entry``--;that discourages software developers from writing 
applications for operating systems that do not already have an 
established base of users.
    u Microsoft effectively excluded rival browsers from the two 
most efficient means of distribution--;pre-installation by 
Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) and distribution by Internet 
Access Providers (IAPs).
    u Microsoft imposed restrictions on its Windows licenses that 
effectively prevented OEMs from pre-installing any browser other 
than Internet Explorer (IE).

[[Page 28403]]

    u Microsoft's technological binding of IE to Windows deterred 
OEMs from pre-installing rival browsers and consumers from using 
them.
    u Microsoft's contracts with IAPs--;for example, agreeing to 
give AOL preferential placement on the Windows desktop in exchange 
for AOL's agreement not to distribute any non-Microsoft browser to 
more than 15 percent of its subscribers and to do so only at the 
customer's explicit request--;blocked the distribution of a 
rival browser.
    u Microsoft's deals with Independent Software Vendors 
(ISVs)--;for example, giving preferential support to ISVs that 
used IE as the default browser in software they develop--;and 
Apple--;prohibiting Apple from pre-installing any non-Microsoft 
browser--;were similarly exclusionary.
    u Microsoft's agreements with ISVs that made receipt of Windows 
technical information conditional on the ISVs'' agreement to 
use Microsoft's version of the Java Virtual Machine (JVM) 
exclusively were anticompetitive. Microsoft also deceived Java 
developers into believing that its tools were not Windows-specific 
and were consistent with Sun's objective of developing cross-
platform applications.
    u Microsoft's pressuring of Intel to stop supporting cross-
platform Java--;by threatening to support an Intel competitor's 
development efforts--;was exclusionary.
    Microsoft was clearly successful in its efforts to eliminate 
threats to its desktop monopoly. Through its anticompetitive 
activities, Microsoft achieved dominance in the browser market and 
forestalled the development of such cross-platform technologies as 
the Netscape browser and Java that could have eroded the 
applications barrier to entry. The promise of operating-system-
neutral computing was that it would inject competition into the 
market for operating systems, which would foster innovation 
throughout the industry. By preventing the development of 
competition, Microsoft's illegal conduct thwarted innovation and 
harmed consumers.
    B. Appropriate Criteria for a Remedial Action
    The Supreme Court has stated that the purpose of remedial action 
in an antitrust case is 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.``\13\ In other words, a remedy must be 
effective in the present (terminating the monopoly), the past 
(expropriating ill- gotten gains), and the future (preventing 
similar conduct going forward).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\253 F 3d at 99-;100, quoting (United States v. 
United Shoe Mach. Corp), 391 U.S. 244, 250 (1968).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As professional economists, we suggest it is especially 
important to look to the future, where economic actors will make 
decisions based on the incentives inherent in whatever remedy the 
court imposes. The remedy should not only address the illegal 
practices Microsoft already has employed to maintain its operating 
system monopoly, it should also as the Supreme Court has 
said--;address practices that Microsoft might employ in the 
future to erect barriers to operating system competition or to use 
anticompetitive practices to leverage its monopoly beyond the 
desktop into new phases of computing. In a business that moves as 
rapidly as the software marketplace (and other information 
technology and communications markets Microsoft is now entering or 
is likely to enter soon) it is particularly important that the 
remedy be forward looking.
    The DOJ claims that the PFJ meets these standards, and 
``will eliminate Microsoft's illegal practices, prevent 
recurrence of the same or similar practices, and restore the 
competitive threat that middleware products posed prior to 
Microsoft's unlawful undertakings.''\14\ For masons 
discussed at length below, we disagree. Here, we address two issues 
relating to the standard by which any remedy should be judged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\CIS at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, it is noteworthy that the DOJ does not claim the PFJ 
achieves the goal of denying Microsoft the fruits of its violations, 
and clearly it will not. Such restitution is important not only to 
``make whole'' the victims of Microsoft's illegal activity 
(e.g., the United States), but also to establish appropriate 
incentives on a going forward basis. In general, allowing violators 
to retain the fruits of their illegal conduct deprives the antitrust 
laws of much of their force, because it sends a signal to violators 
that the returns to their behavior are positive--;even when they 
are caught. With $42 billion in the bank, one wonders how 
Microsoft's senior management could read the proposed PFJ any other 
way.
    Second, and relatedly, DOJ's stated goal of restoring ``the 
competitive threat that middleware products posed prior to 
Microsoft's unlawful undertakings'' is not the appropriate 
objective, and certainly is not equivalent to the Supreme Court's 
standard of ``terminat[ing] the illegal monopoly.'' The 
competitive threat posed by the Netscape browser and Java was 
quantitatively relatively small at the time that Microsoft's illegal 
campaign against them was undertaken. But it was clear, certainly to 
Microsoft, that their competitive potential in the dynamic software 
marketplace was very significant. Had Microsoft not engaged in 
illegal activities, the competitive significance of these products 
would be much greater today than it was at the time.
    There is a useful analogy here to simple commercial damage 
cases. If, for example, an individual or a company incurs monetary 
damages from actions in the past, compensation is generally based on 
the present value of those damages, typically calculated by bringing 
the damage amount forward (from the time of the damage to the 
present) at a normal rate of return. That would be the only way for 
the damaged party to be made whole. Similarly, society has been 
damaged by Microsoft's actions. For society to be made whole, 
competition should, to the extent possible, be restored to what it 
would be today in the absence of Microsoft's illegal conduct,\15\ 
Equally important on a going forward basis, however, Microsoft 
should not be permitted to earn continuing returns based upon its 
illegally enhanced monopoly position. To do so would be to allow the 
company not only to retain the fruits of its illegal conduct in the 
past but to continue harvesting those fruits indefinitely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\To truly be made whole in addition need to be 
compensated for the benefits it lost due to the absence of 
competition in the itnervening years, which is proably not possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    III. The CIS and the PFJ: Flawed Analysis of a Flawed Remedy
    DOJ and Microsoft prefer a PFJ which contains a number of 
restrictions on Microsoft's conduct on a going forward basis. The 
questions before the court are whether entry of the PFJ is 
consistent with the purpose and intent of the Sherman Act and, in 
addition, whether, under the APPA, it is consistent with the public 
interest. To facilitate the court's deliberations on the latter 
issue, the APPA requires the DOJ to submit a CIS.\16\ However, the 
CIS submitted in this proceeding contains virtually no analysis of 
either the PFJ or alternative remedies. It represents nothing more 
than a set of unsupported assertions, and accordingly should be 
given little deference by the court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\CIS at 3-;4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this section, we briefly describe the main provisions of the 
PFJ. Next, we explain why the CIS fails to meet a reasonable 
standard of substantive analysis. Third, we provide some examples of 
shortcomings in the PFJ which would have been obvious had DOJ 
performed a more complete analysis in the CIS.
    A. Major Provisions of the PFJ
    As described in the CIS, the proposed PFJ contains seven major 
provisions. In brief summary, they are:
    . OEMs would have the freedom to support and distribute non-
Microsoft middleware products or operating systems without fear of 
retaliation by Microsoft.
    . To help ensure against retaliation, Microsoft would be 
required to provide uniform licensing terms to the 20 largest 
computer manufacturers.
    . Computer manufacturers would have the freedom to feature and 
promote non-Microsoft middleware and customize their computers to 
use non-Microsoft middleware as the default.
    . Microsoft would be required to disclose the interfaces and 
technical information that its own middleware uses, so that ISVs can 
develop competitive middleware products.
    . Microsoft would be required to disclose communications 
protocols necessary for server and Windows desktop operating system 
software to interoperate with each other.
    . Microsoft would be prohibited from retaliating against ISVs or 
IHVs that develop or distribute software that competes with 
Microsoft middleware or operating system software.
    . Microsoft would be prohibited from entering into exclusive 
contracts concerning its middleware or operating system products.
    The CIS claims that these provisions, and the supporting 
provisions pertaining to enforcement, ``will eliminate 
Microsoft's illegal practices, prevent recurrence of the same or 
similar practices, and restore the competitive threat that 
middleware products posed prior to Microsoft's unlawful

[[Page 28404]]

undertakings.'' But the CIS presents virtually no analysis to 
support this claim.
    B. The Competitive Impact Statement
    The CIS does not meet the standards established by the APPA and 
does not provide sufficient analysis for this court to make an 
informed decision on whether the PFJ is in the public interest.
    Section 16(b)(3) of the APPA requires that the CIS include 
``an explanation o* the proposal ... and the anticipated 
effects on competition of such relief.'' (Emphasis added.) 
Section 16(b)(6) further requires ``a description and 
evaluation of alternatives to such proposal actually considered by 
the United States.'' (Emphasis added). Under Section 16(e), the 
District Court is required to determine that the consent judgment is 
in the public interest and in making that determination ``may 
consider...anticipated effects of alternative remedies ....'' 
Taken together, these provisions make clear that the CIS was 
intended by Congress to serve as a guide to the court in evaluating 
the proposed relief relative to other alternatives which might 
better serve the public interest, not simply as a pro forma set of 
claims and assertions. Yet the CIS in this case fails even to fully 
``explain,'' and certainly cannot be said to 
``evaluate,'' either the likely effects of either the PFJ 
or the available alternatives. Such an analysis would seem 
especially important in a fully-litigated Tunney Act case such as 
this one, where a prior finding of liability suggests a lower degree 
of deference to the PFJ than would otherwise be appropriate, and 
thus a higher burden on the court to evaluate alternatives.
    How should the court evaluate the adequacy of the CIS? Three 
sets of criteria present themselves. First, does the CIS satisfy the 
plain language of the statute? Second, how does it compare with 
previous CIS's in similarly significant cases? Third, how does it 
compare with the standards of analysis that are required to be 
performed in similar situations, such as agency rulemakings? This 
CIS fails all three standards.
    First, does the CIS satisfy the plain language of the statute? 
It depends on how the words ``explain,'' and 
``evaluate'' are defined. To defend successfully the 
plain-language adequacy of the CIS, the DOJ would have to adopt a 
very narrow interpretation of both words.
    Granted, the CIS devotes 43 pages\17\ to reciting and, 
DOJ presumably would argue, ``explaining'' the provisions 
of the PFJ. What the CIS does not do at any point, however, is 
explain ``the anticipated effects [of the PFJ] on 
competition.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\CIS, 17-;60.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The semantic sleight of hand upon which DOJ relies to avoid this 
obligation is found on page 24 of the CIS. There, DOJ reminds us 
that ``Restoring competition is the `key to the whole 
question of an antitrust remedy,'' du Pont, 366 U.S. at 
326.'' Then it continues with a clever subterfuge: 
``Competition was injured in this case principally because 
Microsoft's illegal conduct maintained the applications 
barrier to entry .... Thus, the key to the proper remedy in this 
case is to end Microsoft's restrictions on potentially threatening 
middleware....''\18\ (Emphasis added.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\CIS at 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There, in the word ``thus,'' lies the sum and the 
entirety of the CIS's explanation of the connection between the PFJ 
and its anticipated effects on competition. For as explained in more 
detail below, it is hardly obvious, indeed, it is highly unlikely, 
that simply ending Microsoft's illegal restrictions on middleware 
would have any significant effect on competition on a going forward 
basis. Even in these semantically troubled times, we submit, the 
word ``thus'' cannot be taken as the 
``explanation'' the law requires.
    But the CIS's discussion of the PFJ must be counted an 
analytical masterpiece when compared with its treatment of 
alternative remedies. In contrast to the lengthy, if failed, 
treatment accorded the PFJ, the CIS attempts its ``evaluation 
of alternatives'' in three pages. Not surprisingly, given its 
brevity, the analysis is limited in how much light it can shed on 
the DOJ's decisionmaking process or the relative merits of the 
alternatives before the court. With respect to structural remedies, 
for example, the evaluation consists of 49 words: ``After 
remand to the District Court, the United States informed the court 
and Microsoft that it had decided, in light of the Court of Appeals 
opinion and the need to obtain prompt, certain and effective relief, 
that it would not further seek a breakup of Microsoft into two 
businesses.''\19\ Receiving even less attention are six 
other remedy alternatives, which are summarily dismissed in a single 
paragraph, and an unknown number of ``others received or 
conceived'' which, in apparent direct violation of the APPA, 
are not even described.\20\ There simply is no semantic standard by 
which this treatment of the alternative remedies can possibly be 
considered ``an evaluation.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\CIS at 61.
    \20\CIS at 63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, the CIS submitted by the DOJ in this case fails the 
first test the court should apply: It does not fulfill the plain 
language requirements of either Section 16(b)(3) or Section 16(b)(6) 
of the APPA.
    Any effort the DOJ may make to defend the CIS would be on firmer 
ground if it could argue it is simply following past practice. While 
we believe, as suggested above, that the CIS in this case should be 
held to a higher standard than in cases where the issues have not 
been fully litigated and a finding of liability has not been 
entered, at least the DOJ could claim it was adhering to precedent. 
Even by the standards of past cases, however, this CIS falls far 
short.
    Of course, Tunney Act cases vary in significance and complexity. 
The best standard for comparison for this case would appear to be 
the CIS filed in the AT&T case in 1982.\21\ In that case as in 
this one, DOJ was tasked with explaining and evaluating a Proposed 
Final Judgment aimed at resolving a continuing series of complex 
antitrust actions affecting one of the most important sectors, and 
companies, in the U.S. economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\United States v. Western Electric Company, Inc. and 
American Telephone & Telegraph Company, Competitive Impact 
Statement (February 17, 1982), 47 FR 7170-;01. (Hereafter 
AT&T CIS). Of course, unlike this case, the PFJ in the AT&T 
case was entered prior to any finding of liability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The AT&T CIS differs markedly from the CIS in this 
proceeding both in its explanation of the competitive effects and in 
its evaluation of alternative remedies. Section III of the AT&T 
CIS\22\ presents a comprehensive explanation of the proposed 
remedy and its anticipated effects on competition. Indeed, in stark 
contrast to the CIS in this case, the AT&T CIS contains, in 
Section III.E, an extensive discussion specifically detailing 
``The Competitive Impact of the Proposed Modification.'' 
The section is a lengthy one, explaining in detail how each 
provision of the proposed remedy is expected to affect competition 
on a going forward basis, beginning as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\AT&T CIS at 7173-;7180.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Put in simplest terms, the functional divestiture contemplated 
by the proposed modification will remove from AT&T the power to 
employ local exchange services in ways that impede competition in 
interdependent markets, and will remove from the Bell Operating 
Companies (``BOCs''), which will retain such power, any 
incentive to exercise it. The United States believes, therefore, 
that the modification's divestiture requirement, and its 
complementary injunctive provisions, will substantially accelerate 
the development of competitive markets for interexchange services, 
customer premises equipment, and telecommunications equipment 
generally.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\23 AT&T CIS at 7178.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ensuing pages present a careful analysis of why the 
government believes this to be the case and what the precise impacts 
on competition are likely to be. The proposed remedy will 
``accelerate the emergence of competition in interexchange 
services,''\24\``prevent the reemergence of the ... 
incentive and ability to leverage regulated monopoly power into the 
customer premises equipment market,''\25\ make AT&T 
``subject to competition in all of its 
services,''\26\ ``remove the source of AT&T's 
monopoly power and its ability to leverage monopoly power into 
related markets,''\27\ and ``prevent the creation 
anew of incentives and abilities in the BOCs to use their monopoly 
power to undercut rivals in competitive markets.''\28\ 
``There is every reason to believe that, divested of the BOCs, 
AT&T will be a procompetitive force in the markets that it 
enters. As a result of the modification, it is likely that AT&T 
will expand not only its product lines, but also the areas in which 
it sells telecommunications equipment.''\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\AT&T CIS at 7178.
    \24\AT&T CIS at 7179.
    \24\AT&T CIS at 7179.
    \24\AT&T CIS at 7179.
    \24\AT&T CIS at 7179.
    \24\AT&T CIS at 7179.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The authors have searched in vain, as will the court, for any 
similar explanation in the Microsoft CIS. As a procedural matter, 
the absence of such explanations flies in the face of the APPA. As a 
substantive one, it strongly suggests such statements are lacking 
for the simple reason that they are not justified by the remedy 
Microsoft and the DOJ are asking the court to adopt.

[[Page 28405]]

    The AT&T CIS also differs from the one in this case in its 
treatment of alternative remedies.\30\ The AT&T CIS appears to 
meet the requirements of the APPA by describing in some detail the 
alternative remedies considered and evaluating their likely impacts 
on competition relative to those expected from the one proposed. 
``The United States believes,'' it concludes, ''that 
the [main alternative] did not approach even remotely the 
effectiveness of the proposed modification in achieving conditions 
that would assure full competition in the telecommunications 
industry.''\31\ Again, such evaluative language is 
simply absent from the CIS in this case. And again, one cannot help 
but conclude that, had today's DOJ conducted the same careful 
analysis as that conducted 20 years ago, it might well have reached 
different conclusions in the current case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\30 AT&T CIS at 7181.
    \31\AT&T CIS at 7181.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, then, the CIS not only fails the satisfy the plain 
language of the APPA, but also fails to meet the standard 
established by DOJ for a CIS in the most directly analogous case.
    The third criteria by which the court should evaluate the 
sufficiency of the CIS is whether it meets the standards of analysis 
that are required to be performed in similar situations, the most 
obvious of which is agency rulemakings.
    For at least the last 20 years, agencies have been required to 
undertake a detailed regulatory impact analysis when they propose 
major regulatory actions. Under E.O. 12291 (in effect during the 
Reagan and Bush Administrations), and E.O. 12866 (issued by 
President Clinton and still in effect), government agencies have 
been expected to prepare a detailed analysis of the expected 
benefits and costs of major regulatory proposals and alternatives to 
them.\32\ While the PFJ is technically not a regulation that would 
fall under E.O. 12866, the magnitude of its impact far exceeds the 
$100 million threshold that defines a ``major rule'' and 
thus triggers the requirement for a detailed analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\32 See E.O. 12291 (February 17, 1981) and E.O. 12866 
(September 30, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The analysis of regulatory interventions in the economy, which 
is what the PFJ in this case is, is not a black art. Increasingly, 
and on the basis of more than two decades of performing such 
analyses of all major rules, regulatory analysis has become a 
scientific process comprised of distinct steps and containing 
specific elements. E.O. 12866, for example, lays out specific 
criteria such analyses should meet, including: ``(i) An 
assessment, including the underlying analysis, of benefits 
anticipated from the regulatory action (such as, but not limited to, 
the promotion of the efficient functioning of the economy and 
private markets ....) together with, to the extent feasible, a 
quantification of those benefits; (ii) An assessment, including the 
underlying analysis, of costs anticipated from the regulatory action 
... together with, to the extent feasible, a quantification of those 
costs; and (iii) An assessment, including the underlying analysis, 
of the costs and benefits of potentially effective and reasonably 
feasible alternatives to the planned regulation ....''
    The specific analytical techniques to be used in such 
evaluations are further described in guidance from the Office of 
Management and Budget issued January 11, 1996,\33\ and reiterated 
most recently by OMB on June 19, 2001.\34\ These guidelines require 
agencies, before issuing any major regulation, to take into account 
such issues as whether more ``performance oriented'' 
approaches are possible, the impact of alternative levels of 
stringency and effective dates, and alternative methods of ensuring 
compliance, and to perform evaluations that take into account 
``discounting,'' ``risk and uncertainty,'' and 
``non-monetized benefits and costs.'' Each analysis, the 
guidance demands, must ``provide information allowing 
decisionmakers to determine that: There is adequate information 
indicating the need for and consequences of the proposed action; The 
potential benefits to society justify the potential costs ...; The 
proposed action will maximize the net benefits to society...; [and] 
.... Agency decisions are based on the best reasonably available 
scientific, technical, economic, and other information.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\Office of Management and Budget, Economic Analysis of 
Federal Regulations Under Executive Order 12866 (January 11, 
1996)(available at www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/riaguide.html).
    \34\Office of Management and Budget, Memorandum for the 
Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies: Improving Regulatory 
Impact Analyses (June 19, 2001)(available at www.whitehouse.gov.omb/
memoranda/m01- 23.html) The requirements of the APPA with respect to 
Competitive Impact Statements are, of course, far less specific than 
those listed above. But the purpose of the APPA in requiring a CIS 
is presumably similar to the purpose of regulatory analyses: To 
allow decisionmakers, in this case the court, to understand the 
ramifications of their actions relative to alternative choices. By 
the standards of modem policy analysis, DOJ's CIS fails to perform 
this function at the level the court should expect, especially in a 
case of this magnitude. Office of Management and Budget, Memorandum 
for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies: Improving 
Regulatory Impact Analyses (June 19, 2001)(available at 
www.whitehouse.gov.omb/memoranda/m01- 23.html)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To repeat what we asserted at the outset of this section, the 
court might evaluate the CIS in this case by three standards: First, 
does the CIS satisfy the plain language of the statute? Second, how 
does it compare with previous CIS's in similarly significant cases? 
Third, how does it compare with the standards of analysis that are 
required to be performed in similar situations, such as agency 
rulemakings? This CIS fails all three standards.
    C. The PFJ Will Not Have Its Claimed Effect, Nor Any Pro-
Competitive Effect
    In fact, a close reading of the language of the PFJ indicates 
that it will not do what the DOJ claims. Moreover, even if DOJ's 
claims are taken at face value, the PFJ will not have its intended 
effect because of the realities of the marketplace. Indeed, this is 
the only conclusion that can be reached based upon a real analysis 
of the ``competitive impact'' of the PFJ, which is to say 
an analysis of how, if at all, the provisions of the PFJ will change 
the behavior of participants in the marketplace.
    Other commentators will undoubtedly thoroughly catalogue the 
loopholes in the PFJ, of which there are many, and it is not our 
intention to do so here. It is, however, illustrative of the defects 
of the PFJ to analyze it through the lens of the Netscape browser 
experience, since so much of Microsoft's liability concerns its 
actions toward the Netscape browser. Accordingly, much of the PFJ is 
directed at precluding the type of anticompetitive acts that 
Microsoft undertook against Netscape (even though the browser war is 
over and the industry has now moved on to a different stage). But, 
the PFJ does not even succeed in this minimal goal--;of creating 
the conditions under which the Netscape browser could have competed 
without being subject to Microsoft's exclusionary practices. Indeed, 
the PFJ specifically permits many of the exclusionary practices in 
which Microsoft engaged:
    . Section III.A of the PFJ is supposed to protect OEMs from 
retaliation by Microsoft if they distribute non-Microsoft products. 
However, the language of Section III.A prohibits Microsoft from 
retaliating against an OEM for ``developing, distributing, 
promoting, using, selling, or licensing any software that competes 
with Microsoft Platform Software or any product or service that 
distributes or promotes any Non-Microsoft Middleware.'' 
(Emphasis added). (Microsoft Platform Software is defined as 
including (i) a Windows Operating System Product and/or (ii) a 
Microsoft Middleware Product.) While the Netscape browser was a 
potential competitor for the Microsoft operating system, it never 
became an actual competitor. Moreover, at the time Netscape 
introduced its browser, Microsoft did not have a comparable 
Middleware Product. Thus, the language of III.A would have permitted 
Microsoft to retaliate against OEMs for distributing the Netscape 
browser at the time it was introduced.
    . Similarly, Section III.F. 1 prohibits Microsoft from 
retaliating against any ISV or IHV for ``developing, using, 
distributing, promoting or supporting any software that competes 
with Microsoft Platform Software or any software that runs on any 
software that competes with Microsoft Platform Software 
....''(Emphasis added). The prohibitions in Section III.F.2 on 
Microsoft's relations with ISVs are also triggered by software that 
``competes with Microsoft Platform Software'', which the 
Netscape browser did not initially do.
    . Section III.G.2 is intended to prevent similar exclusionary 
behavior with respect to IAPs and ICPs, by prohibiting Microsoft 
from entering into any agreement with ``any IAP or ICP that 
grants placement on the desktop or elsewhere ... on the condition 
that the IAP or ICP refrain from distributing, promoting or using 
any software that competes with Microsoft Middleware.'' 
(Emphasis added). Again, Netscape's browser was a new product that 
did not compete with any Microsoft product at the time it was 
introduced.
    . Section III.C is intended to prevent restrictive agreements 
with OEMs by, for

[[Page 28406]]

example, preventing Microsoft from restricting the ability of its 
OEM licensees from ``[l]aunching automatically ...any Non-
Microsoft Middleware if a Microsoft Middleware Product that provides 
similar functionality would otherwise be launched ....'' (See 
Section III.C.3, emphasis added). Under this language, Microsoft can 
preclude its OEM licensees from permitting the automatic launch of a 
new product if Microsoft does not have a similar product or if the 
Microsoft product does not have ``similar functionality'' 
(obviously, a term open to interpretation). Again, when the Netscape 
browser was launched, Microsoft did not have a similar product.
    . Section III.D is intended to preclude Microsoft from excluding 
rival products by denying them the technical information they need 
to interoperate with the Windows operating systems. It requires 
Microsoft to ``disclose to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs, and OEMs, 
for the sole purpose of interoperating with a Windows Operating 
System Product ... the APIs and related Documentation that are used 
by Microsoft Middleware to interoperate with a Windows Operating 
System Product.'' (Emphasis added). If, however, Microsoft does 
not produce an analogous product, it might not use the APIs needed 
for a new application, such as the Netscape browser, to get started.
    . Section III.H contains a variety of provisions designed to 
enable choice of Non-Microsoft Middleware Products on the part of 
users and OEMs. The PFJ explicitly states, however, that 
``Microsoft's obligations under this Section III.H as to any 
new Windows Operating System Product shall be determined based on 
the Microsoft Middleware Products which exist seven months prior to 
the last beta test version (i.e., the one immediately preceding the 
first release candidate) of that Windows Operating System 
Product.'' At the time the Netscape browser was introduced, 
there was no comparable Microsoft Middleware Product.
    . Finally, Non-Microsoft Middleware Products are defined to 
include products ``of which at least one million copies were 
distributed in the United States within the previous year.'' 
(Section VI.N). Thus, regardless of any of the other provisions, the 
PFJ permits exclusionary behavior against new products that are 
trying to get established.
    In sum, under the provisions of the PFJ Microsoft would have 
been permitted to engage in anticompetitive practices against the 
Netscape browser because the browser did not compete against the 
Windows operating system and because Microsoft did not at the outset 
have a comparable product. Moreover, at least in the early stages, 
the Netscape browser would not have been covered because a million 
copies had not been distributed in a single year. The DOJ obviously 
feels that the fabled entrepreneurs of Silicon Valley, working in 
their garages, are not worthy of protection against Microsoft under 
the PFJ. It is especially ironic that Microsoft, which has dedicated 
so much rhetoric to persuading the courts and the public that its 
monopoly could be overturned at any moment by the proverbial 
entrepreneur working out of her garage, should seek to preserve the 
right to squash precisely such competitive threats. More broadly, 
the requirement that Microsoft have a comparable product in order to 
trigger some of the PFJ's provisions creates perverse incentives. It 
may discourage Microsoft from introducing its own product, because 
to do so triggers provisions restricting its ability to exclude a 
potential competitor. The result could be that consumers would be 
deprived entirely of a useful middleware product that might 
potentially compete with the Windows operating system, because 
Microsoft is able to engage in exclusionary practices against 
another firm and does not find it in its interest to introduce its 
own product.
    But the PFJ is flawed at an even deeper level: Even if it did 
what DOJ and Microsoft say it would, its effect on firms that 
operate in Microsoft's markets and its ability to restore 
competition in those markets would be minimal at most. Most of the 
PFJ is intended to prevent Microsoft from retaliating against OEMs, 
ISVs, IAPs and others that distribute, develop or otherwise support 
software that competes with Microsoft middleware. Under the terms of 
the PFJ, however, these entities would have little incentive to 
promote competitive middleware.
    This is principally because, despite the Appeals Court ruling 
that Microsoft's integration of the browser and the operating system 
was anticompetitive, the PFJ would allow Microsoft to continue to 
bundle its middleware (and other) products with its operating 
system. Indeed, Microsoft's new XP software incorporates new 
functionality into the Windows operating system as never before. It 
includes, among other things, the IE browser, Microsoft's instant 
messaging and email software, Windows Media Player and the Microsoft 
Passport digital authentication software. All of these functions are 
bundled together and the combined package is sold at a fixed price.
    Thus, OEMs have virtually no incentive to customize their 
offerings with non-Microsoft software. To do so involves an 
additional cost for the non-Microsoft software when compariable 
functionality is provided by Microsoft at no additional cost. An OEM 
that did this would have to pass these added costs on to its 
customers and would likely lose sales to other OEMs. Obviously, if 
OEMs don't have the incentive to install non-Microsoft software, 
ISVs won't have the incentive to develop it and IAPs won't have the 
incentive to distribute it.
    As a result, the PFJ will not have any significant pro-
competitive impact in the markets for either middleware or PC 
operating systems. Nor, for the same reasons, is it likely to have 
any significant pro-competitive impact on newly emerging markets, 
such as voice-over-IP instant messaging, game boxes, e-commerce 
technologies (e.g., ``Passport'') or digital rights 
management technologies. Indeed, the inability to make any plausible 
claims for such pro- competitive effects is the most likely 
explanation for the fact that, in contrast to the AT&T CIS, the 
CIS in this case doesn't make any.
    IV. The Remedy Alternatives
    There are two general classes of remedies that can be employed 
to remedy Microsoft's antitrust violations--;conduct remedies 
and structural remedies. Conduct remedies leave Microsoft intact and 
attempt to constrain its anticompetitive behavior by imposing a set 
of behavioral requirements--;essentially, a regulatory regime 
tailor-made for one firm. Microsoft's structure--;and, 
importantly, its incentives--;remain largely the same.\35\ The 
challenge is to develop rules that effectively deter anticompetitive 
behavior, given that such behavior might continue to be in 
Microsoft's interest. The PFJ, which relies on conduct remedies, 
will not be effective in deterring anticompetitive behavior on the 
part of Microsoft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\35 Microsoft's incentives would be modified to the 
extent it faces legal penalties, but those penalties would have to 
be very large to have a significant effect on Microsoft's 
incentives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Structural relief takes a different approach. Structural relief, 
as the name implies, involves restructuring the firm so as to change 
its incentives and ability to act anticompetitively. As DOJ 
explained eloquently in the AT&T CIS, if a restructuring is 
successful in achieving those goals, behavioral restrictions are 
largely unnecessary. The Appeals Court noted that structural relief 
is a common form of relief in antitrust cases and is ``the most 
important of antitrust remedies.''\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\253 F 3d at 103, quoting United States v. E.I. du 
Pont de Nemours & Co., 366 U.S. 316, 331 (1961).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this section, we describe the alternative structural remedies 
available to the court. Then we offer an evaluation of the proposals 
offered by the remaining litigating states.
    A. Alternative Structural Remedies
    At the government's urging, the District Court initially adopted 
a structural remedy, supplemented by interim conduct 
relief.\37\ The Appeals Court vacated the District Court's 
remedy, partly because it modified the District Court's liability 
finding and partly because the District Court had failed to hold an 
evidentiary hearing.\38\ The Appeals Court did not, however, 
rule out a structural solution to this case. The Court directed that 
``the District Court also should consider whether plaintiffs 
have established a sufficient causal connection between Microsoft's 
anticompetitive conduct and its dominant position in the OS 
market.''\39\ It continued, ``[i]f the court on 
remand is unconvinced of the causal connection between Microsoft's 
exclusionary conduct and the company's position in the OS market, it 
may well conclude that divestiture is not an appropriate 
remedy.''\40\* This is an issue that should be explored 
in an evidentiary hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\United States v. Microsoft Corp., 97 F Supp-2d. 
(DCCirc. 2000) ``Final Judgement''.
    \38\253 F 3d at 6.
    \39\253 F 3d at 105.
    \40\253 F 3d at 105-;6..
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While it is difficult to predict exactly how the industry would 
have developed in the absence of Microsoft's anticompetitive 
behavior, it is likely that an alternative to Microsoft's operating- 
system platform would have emerged and it is a virtual certainty 
that Microsoft's position would be far less dominant than it is 
today. Clearly, Microsoft thought that was a distinct possibility.

[[Page 28407]]

    The causation between Microsoft's anticompetitive practices and 
its operating system monopoly runs both ways. Without its monopoly, 
Microsoft would have been unable to engage in the exclusionary 
practices documented by the District Court and affirmed by the 
Appeals Court. Moreover, because of the wide array of business 
practices at issue and the complexity of the industry, it is very 
difficult to fashion a conduct relief regime that will be effective 
if Microsoft retains its dominant market position. This is why the 
Department of Justice (initially) and others (including ourselves) 
favor a structural solution. Two different forms of structural 
solution have been proposed, which we review in turn.
    The DOJ initially proposed, and the District Court initially 
ordered, a vertical divestiture, which would divide Microsoft along 
product lines, into an operating systems company and an applications 
company.\41\ The DOJ argued that this remedy would create two 
powerful companies that would have the incentive to compete with 
each other, diminishing the market power of both. According to 
Timothy Bresnahan, Chief Economist at the Antitrust Division at the 
time, ``divestiture of the company into an applications and an 
operating system company restores competitive conditions very like 
those destroyed by the anticompetitive acts. Absent the 
anticompetitive acts, Microsoft would have lost the browser war, and 
other finns would have commercialized useful technologies now 
controlled by Microsoft. Divided technical leadership, which could 
be accomplished by having an independent browser company in the late 
1990s or an applications company now, lowers barriers to entry and 
competition in many markets. It was exactly this route to an 
increase in competition that Microsoft avoided by its 
anticompetitive acts. Second, ending Microsoft's unique position in 
the industry offers innovative new technologies the choice of two 
mass-market distribution partners, either Appsco [the applications 
company] or OSCo [the operating system company]. The divestiture 
will do much to reduce the motive to violate and also to reduce the 
effectiveness of future anticompetitive acts. It restores conditions 
for competitive innovation at a moment in technology history [i.e., 
when the Internet is starting to be commercialized] when having a 
single firm set the direction of innovation in PC and end-user 
oriented internet markets is most unwise.''\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\41 Final Judgement at 2.
    \42\Timonthy F. Bresnahan, ``The Right 
Remedy,'' at 1, (available at www.stanford.edu/tbres/microsoft/
The Right Remedy.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the Department of Justice, in initially proposing 
this remedy, argued that separating the operating system from the 
applications company would ``reduce the entry barriers that 
Microsoft's illegal conduct erected and make it less likely that 
Microsoft [would] have the incentive or ability to increase them in 
the future.''\43\ An independent applications company 
would have every incentive to support competitors to Windows rather 
than make decisions based on the level of threat those competitors 
pose to Microsoft.\44\ A separate applications company would have 
appropriate incentives to port its products to competing operating 
systems, such as Linux, thereby lowering the applications barrier to 
entry that potential competitors face. Currently, Microsoft has an 
incentive to strategically withhold applications from actual or 
potential competitors, even if providing them would otherwise be 
economically justified. In addition, the applications company would 
have the incentive to make its tools available to Independent 
Software Vendors (ISVs) that cooperate with competing operating 
system providers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\Plantiffs'' Memorandom in support of Proposed 
Final Judgement at 30-;43, Microsoft (No. 98-;1232), 
available at http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f4600/4640.htm.
    \44\United States v. Microsoft Corp., 147 F 3d 935 
(DCCirc. 1998) Romer Declaration # 4, (hereafter Romer).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Separate operating system and applications companies would make 
it possible for middleware technologies in the applications company 
to be competitive with Windows. When applications are written to 
middleware technologies, like the Netscape browser, which operate 
between the applications software and the operating system, they 
become operating system neutral,\45\ reducing the applications 
barrier to entry and facilitating competition with Windows. There 
are several desktop applications, including Microsoft Office, that 
expose APIs and could become important middleware technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\45 Romer at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of course, a vertical divesture now would have a somewhat 
different effect than when it was first adopted by the District 
Court, because Microsoft has bundled many more applications into its 
new XP operating system. If the District Court again decided to 
adopt this remedy, it would also have to decide whether to require 
Microsoft to remove some applications functionality from its XP 
operating system or permit it to remain as is. If the XP operating 
system were allowed to remain as is, applications that would 
previously have been part of the applications company would be part 
of the operating system company. However, significant 
applications--;principally, Microsoft Office--;still remain 
separate from the operating system.
    The alternative to a vertical approach is what we term a 
``hybrid'' structural remedy, which combines both vertical 
and horizontal elements. A purely horizontal divestiture would 
divide Microsoft into several vertically integrated companies, each 
with full rights to Microsoft's intellectual property, creating 
several sellers of Windows as well as Microsoft's other software 
products. This remedy arguably goes beyond what is necessary or 
could be justified as matter of law, since it divides up products 
that were not the subject of the case.
    A number of commentators, including Dr. Lenard, have proposed a 
``hybrid'' remedy, which has elements of both vertical and 
horizontal divestiture.\46\ It goes a step beyond the vertical 
divestiture remedy that the District Court adopted by first 
separating the operating systems company from the applications 
company and then creating three equivalent operating system 
companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\See Thomas M. Lenard, Creating Competition in the 
Market for Operating Systems: A Structural Remedy for Microsoft, ( 
Washington: Progress & Freedom Foundation, 2000) http://www.pff, 
org/remedies/htm; Remedies Brief of Amici Curiae Robert E. Litan et 
al., 2000; Thomas M. Lenard, ``Creating Competition in the 
Market for Operating Systems: Alternative Structural Remedies in the 
Microsoft Case,'' George Mason Law Review, Vol. 9., Spring 
2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Microsoft's bundling of more applications functionality into the 
new XP operating system strengthens the arguments for the hybrid 
remedy relative to other remedies. The PFJ (as discussed above) does 
not contain any restrictions on bundling, which will hinder its 
effectiveness dramatically. In addition, as more applications are 
moved into the operating system, the vertical divestiture becomes 
less able to restore the competitive balance, because the newly 
formed applications company would be a less powerful competitor.
    By creating competing Windows companies, the hybrid remedy 
directly addresses the monopoly problem, which is the source of 
Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior. As indicated above, without 
the monopoly, Microsoft would never have been able to exclude the 
Netscape browser from the most effective means of 
distribution--;OEMs and IAPs. It would not, for example, have 
been able to get the OEMs to refrain from pre-installing the 
Netscape browser as a condition for receiving a Windows license. 
Similarly, Microsoft would not have been able to extinguish the 
market for a competing browser by bundling the Windows operating 
system with IE. Microsoft would not have been able to do these 
things--;which are at the core of the Appeals Court's liability 
finding--;because the OEMs and the IAPs would have had 
competitive alternatives to which they could turn.
    The hybrid remedy would eliminate the applications barrier to 
entry for the new Windows companies and deprive Microsoft of its 
ability to leverage its desktop monopoly into new markets. Because 
it really does restore competition, extensive behavioral 
restrictions are not required, making this the least regulatory of 
the available alternatives.
    The hybrid remedy is to a significant extent an 
``intellectual property'' remedy, requiring Microsoft to 
grant full intellectual property rights to its Windows Operating 
System to two new companies. This type of remedy is particularly 
suited to ``new-economy'' companies like Microsoft, whose 
assets consist primarily of informational capital, which can easily 
be replicated.\47\ The rationale for going further and dividing up 
employees is that much of the intellectual property is embodied in 
the employees.\48\ In contrast to traditional ``old-
economy''

[[Page 28408]]

companies, however, there is very little physical capital to be 
divided up.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\Remedies Brief of Amici Curiae Robert E. Litan et 
al., 2000.
    \48\Thomas M. Lenard, Creating Competition in the Market 
for Operating Systems: A Structural Remedy for 
Microsoft,(Washington,: Progress & Freedom Foundation, 2000) 
http://www.pff.org/remedies/htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This factor should alleviate some of the concerns expressed in 
the Appeals Court opinion about the use of a structural remedy in 
the case of a ``unitary company``--;i.e., a company 
not formed by mergers and acquisitions.\49\ Such concerns have more 
validity in the case of old- economy companies, because of the 
difficulty of dividing up physical capital. What is being proposed 
in the hybrid remedy is much closer to a reproduction than it is to 
a division of the company's assets. When those assets consist 
primarily of information, they can be reproduced at very low cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\49 253 F 3d at 103.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    B. The Litigating States Proposal
    We believe a structural remedy continues to offer the best hope 
of deterring Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior in a way that is 
not overly regulatory. If, however, a structural remedy is off the 
table, the conduct remedy proposed by the Litigating States (LS) is 
far better than the PFJ. The LS Proposal does not contain the 
obvious loopholes and exceptions that are pervasive in the PFJ. 
Moreover, the LS Proposal includes a number of provisions that can 
partially restore competition to what it might have been absent the 
anticompetitive behavior. Because it will change the behavior of the 
participants in the market, the LS Proposal provides a serious 
remedy to Microsoft's offenses. Some of the attractive features of 
the LS proposal are as follows:
    ï¿½ In contrast to the PFJ, the LS Proposal contains 
prohibitions on exclusionary and retaliatory behavior that are clear 
and unambiguous and mean what they purport to mean. In general, they 
provide meaningful protection against retaliation for the 
development and distribution of non-Microsoft software.
    The LS Proposal would require Microsoft to license an unbundled 
version of its software. As discussed above, the bundling of 
applications together with the monopoly operating system makes it 
uneconomic in most cases to develop and distribute software that 
competes with Microsoft. This requirement would address that problem 
and create an environment in which rival software can be developed.
    ï¿½ The LS Proposal would require Microsoft to license its 
software to third parties (not just OEMs) who could produce a 
customized product that would enlarge the range of consumer choice 
and provide competition for Microsoft.
    ï¿½ The proposal also would require Microsoft to continue 
to license predecessor versions of Windows. This would permit OEMs 
to expand the range of consumer choice by providing a lower-priced 
operating-system product that might be perfectly satisfactory for a 
large number of users. In addition, it would permit OEMs and third 
parties to continue to develop a differentiated product that might 
be competitive with Microsoft.
    ï¿½The LS Proposal would require Microsoft to make IE 
available on an open-source basis, and would require Microsoft to 
distribute Java, thereby partially reversing some of the effects of 
Microsoft's illegal activities
    ï¿½ Finally, the LS Proposal would require Microsoft 
``to auction to a third party the right to port Microsoft 
Office to competing operating systems.'' This would reduce the 
applications barrier to entry for a competing operating system, such 
as Linux. All of these aspects of the LS Proposal would add 
significantly to the probability that the remedy in this case would 
actually have the desired effect of increasing competition in one or 
more of the relevant product markets.
    V. Conclusion
    The PFJ is not an adequate remedy and its adoption is not in the 
public interest. It will not deter Microsoft from engaging in 
anticompetitive activities and it will not restore competition in 
this extremely important sector of the economy. Moreover, the CIS 
that the government has prepared does not provide the information 
necessary for the District Court to determine that the PFJ is in the 
public interest.
    In order to generate the necessary information for such a 
determination, the District Court should hold an evidentiary hearing 
in which the competitive impacts, benefits and costs of all the 
available remedies are closely evaluated. In addition to the PFJ, 
the Court should consider structural remedies--;which appear to 
be justified under the criteria established by the Court of 
Appeals--;as well as the LS Proposal. We believe that at the end 
of this process, the court will agree that the PFJ is not in the 
public interest and that the ``hybrid'' structural remedy 
we recommend best meets all the of the criteria governing the 
court's deliberations in this matter.



MTC-00028687

From: Albert Delgado
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. 
The government should understand that Microsoft has been found 
guilty and should make restitution and change its predatory 
practices. Microsoft does not innovate, but makes shoddy software 
that many hackers attack at will. At Chicago public schools, the 
network administrators now prefer Linux and OSX from Apple since 
they are stable platforms.
    Albert Delgado
    Chicago Public Schools.



MTC-00028688

From: Ron Ohlander
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/28/02 4:57pm
Subject: FW: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am a computer scientist (Ph.D Carnegie-Mellon University) who 
has worked in the field for over 25 years. I have been a close 
observer of Microsoft's behavior since its inception. I believe that 
the proposed Microsoft settlement is a farce.
    Microsoft has exhibited rapacious behavior since its start. The 
courts have found them to be a monopoly and guilty of monopolistic 
practices, which only attests to what most professionals in the 
field have known for a long time. Even as the case has been 
progressing through the courts, Microsoft has continued its 
aggressive tactics. The recent allegation that they lobbied 
congressional members in defiance of the Tunney act once again bears 
out my belief that they think they are above the law.
    The government has a duty to pursue a course of action that will 
effectively remedy the situation. This has not been achieved. The 
proposed settlement terms are extremely weak. They will have 
virtually no effect in curbing Microsoft's behavior. On the 
contrary, they seem to be an endorsement of Microsoft's tactics. How 
can anyone who has any knowledge of the matter imagine that the 
playing field has been leveled, or that Microsoft will modify its 
monopolistic practices on the basis of said terms? In addition, 
where is the penalty for their past actions? The government is about 
to fail very badly in its duty to protect the American public.
    If Microsoft continues to dominate through monopolistic 
practices, it will significantly affect the technology available to 
consumers, and what they pay for it. Microsoft has always rushed to 
market with shoddy software, expecting users to exercise and test 
it. Large numbers of bug fixes are generally required to any given 
product, but the products themselves never stabilize because 
Microsoft releases the next version with more bells and whistles and 
even more bugs. This process explains why their operating systems 
are so vulnerable to security attacks, i.e., as the systems have 
become larger and more complex, adequate security, which has never 
been very good in any of their products, becomes more tenuous. A 
lack of real competition exacerbates this kind of result. Businesses 
and individuals who use Microsoft products and suffer the 
consequences of viruses, worms, etc. pay an enormous cost. In a 
competitive market, consumers could make other choices unless the 
problems were fixed.
    Finally, I don't understand how anyone can support Microsoft's 
argument that the consumer has benefited in the form of low-cost 
software. One doesn't buy such a product and have done with further 
expense. Rather, it is a case of buying on the installment plan, as 
one pays again and again for each new release that is made, along 
with the need to pay separately for user manuals. If the average 
person were to calculate the outlay for software over a reasonable 
time period, it would be shown that the cost is far from the bargain 
Microsoft portrays.
    In conclusion, the government must find a way to curb 
Microsoft's behavior. The currently proposed settlement signally 
fails to do that.
    Sincerely,
    Ronald B. Ohlander



MTC-00028689

From: bugbee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:59pm
Subject: Comments on MS / DoJ Settlement
    Your Honor,
    To be especially brief, I'll be politically incorrect. (You have 
a lot to read.)
    It sucks.
    Why? For all intents and purposes, there is 1) no penalty for 
past illegal acts, and 2) no

[[Page 28409]]

teeth in the agreement to insure it won't happen again.
    A structural change in the way Microsoft does business is what's 
needed. Promising to be good has not worked before, and future 
monitoring is both ineffectual and pointless. I could elaborate, but 
I'd be taking your valuable time and I'm sure you've heard it all 
before.
    Please do what you can to SOLVE this problem. ...a structural 
change.
    Thanks for listening,
    Larry Bugbee
    Kent, Washington



MTC-00028690

From: Russell Pavlicek
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    This settlement is an extremely bad idea. It will not adequately 
curtail Microsoft's abuse of monopoly power.
    Sincerely,
    Russell Pavlicek



MTC-00028691

From: Robert McConnell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    In response to the government's request for comments on the 
proposed Microsoft Settlement:
    As a computer professional with over three decades of experience 
writing software for a variety of operating systems including 
Windows, and as one-time fan of Microsoft, I would like to make two 
points. The first is to suggest one route which in the absence of a 
breakup I expect Microsoft to continue to exploit to maintain it's 
monopoly. The second point is to call attention to a related danger 
from Microsoft's monopoly which I believe is accelerating the flight 
of manufacturing from the US to foreign countries.
    First the monopoly preservation strategy:
    Most competent computer programmers can, if they wish, write and 
document functioning code which is virtually incomprehensible to any 
other competent programmer (including the author him/herself). 
Moreover said author can almost certainly (disingenuously but 
successfully) argue in a court comprised of non-experts that the 
code is straightforward, well-documented and easy to understand.
    What does this have to do with Microsoft maintaining and 
extending their monopoly? Everything. Whether hardware or software, 
it is in the interests of the creator of any product to facilitate 
use by the consumer while hiding as much of the internal workings as 
possible to discourage competition. Microsoft's strategy has been to 
continuously expand the boundaries of it's ``operating 
system'' (more properly now an operating environment) 
enveloping or attempting to envelope entire classes of applications, 
office, networking, on-line shopping, manufacturing etc... within 
the boundaries of the ``operating system''. This can be 
done explicitly as in the case of Internet Explorer, or implicitly 
by simply making it difficult and or prohibitively expensive for 
outsiders, to access, or even know about operating system, or 
hardware features which may be important for fields Microsoft 
dominates, or wishes to dominate. The ``browser wars'' 
were about exposing the inner workings of Microsoft's operating 
system so others might use them.
    Because of the ease of writing and defending impenetrable code 
Microsoft already has an almost unlimited ability to restrict access 
to the core of the operating system and to the hardware beyond, 
whether or not a court orders it to provide access. Microsoft sells 
just enough tools to access selected parts its operating environment 
to be able to provide lip-service to openness. Generally speaking 
the products are scaled in such a way that only those who have made 
a large commitment, financial or ``sweat equity'' which 
will tend to lock in their allegiance to Microsoft are allowed 
access to the more powerful tools.
    Because of the high barrier created by the impenetrability of 
the Microsoft code, it is hard to imagine any remedy short of a 
breakup will be able to curtail Microsoft's illegal monopolistic 
practices. The second comment, related to manufacturing flight, is 
contained in a letter I sent to the Attorney General general of 
Massachusetts several months ago. The text follows:
    Dear Mr. Attorney General,
    I must congratulate you and your staff on the stand you have 
taken against the proposed Microsoft settlement.
    I am a software developer who has long been appalled by the 
relentless manner in which the American public interest continues to 
be steamrolled by the Microsoft juggernaut. Therefore I was shocked 
by the decision by the Justice Department to take the breakup option 
off the table. It is my opinion that this option offered the only 
chance to restore competition to the software marketplace. Needless 
to say, I was further dismayed by the terms of the proposed 
settlement.
    As you are obviously well aware, under the guise of 
``innovation'' Microsoft has succeeded in stifling true 
innovation in many ways. Much of the damage done by Microsoft is not 
as a result of overt actions towards the ``victim'' 
whether an individual or a company. Rather it is in creating an 
environment in which the fate of others who have tried to innovate 
in the face of Microsoft serves as a deterrent to further 
innovation. Of course this type of deterrence by example does not 
carry the connotation of physical danger as might be expected from 
similar threats by organized crime or terrorists. Nevertheless it is 
quite effective. This is an environment in which:
    1. Intelligent software developers know that they have little 
chance of being successful unless they join the Microsoft camp. Once 
in that camp more of a developer's time will be likely spent keeping 
up with Microsoft's complexity-increasing-whims than improving their 
product.
    2. Intelligent funding institutions know from history that there 
is no point in developing a product in a market in which Microsoft 
is known or believed to have interest. The best one can hope for in 
the case of a very successful product is the opportunity to sell the 
product to Microsoft at a price determined only by the latter.
    3. The required ``operating system'' (now more 
properly an operating environment) is so complex as to create a huge 
barrier between the creative idea of a researcher, developer, or 
engineer and its implementation into a useful product.
    I'm reminded of a university researcher's website I saw several 
years ago. The researcher noted that he was using older, and by then 
outdated, analysis software for his research. Although he had 
written the original software himself, he believed that the new 
requirement of interfacing with Windows had introduced such 
complexities that he could not afford either the time to update the 
software himself, or the money to to hire a Windows specialist to 
update it for him. Whether or not the researcher's assumption was 
actually true, Microsoft literature and promotions (the so-called 
FUD factor) would certainly lead him to this conclusion. Hence his 
further research in this field was stymied.
    4. Similarly the Microsoft ``one size fits all'' 
operating system and tools, interposed between America's 
manufacturing engineers and the computer, hamper their creative 
efforts. Modern Windows software effectively prevents these 
engineers from writing high speed one-of-a-kind applications 
necessary for the most efficient manufacturing. Ten years ago the 
same engineer would have had no trouble writing this type of 
software. As a Senior Member and member of the Peer Review Committee 
of the Machine Vision Association of the Society of Manufacturing 
Engineers I became personally concerned about this issue several 
years ago. I was particularly worried that is resulting in 
substantial advantages for manufacturing facilities in foreign 
countries and earlier this year prepared the attached document.
    I'm not sure any of this will be of any help in the successful 
resolution of the Microsoft situation, However I thought it might be 
helpful in explaining why at least one of us is behind you.
    Again, congratulations and good luck on your stand!
    Sincerely,
    Robert McConnell



MTC-00028692

From: Stephen Hopkins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:04pm Subject'' Microsoft Settlement
    Conceptual Computing, Incorporated
    i
    9315 Locarno Drive, Dallas, TX 75243-;7217
    January 28, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    U.S. Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    Most individuals and companies affiliated with computer software 
products are very excited about the recent antitrust settlement 
between Microsoft Corp. and the U.S. Justice Department. The lawsuit 
has significantly dampened technological innovation as well

[[Page 28410]]

as investment. Continuing the lawsuit would only make matters worse; 
therefore, the settlement should be accepted and finalized as soon 
as possible as it is fair and reasonable.
    For example, it has agreed to disclose its internal interfaces 
for Windows to its competitors. It also agreed not to retaliate 
against computer makers who ship software that competes with 
anything in its Windows operating system. Last, and perhaps most 
important, Microsoft has to design future versions of Windows to 
provide a mechanism to make it easy for computer makers, consumers 
and software developers to promote non-Microsoft software within 
Windows.
    I sincerely hope the settlement is allowed to take hold as soon 
as the public comment period concludes and that those who may 
attempt to derail it are not successful in their attempts.
    Sincerely,
    Stephen Hopkins
    President
    CC: Representative Richard Armey



MTC-00028693

From: wt.catch1
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:57pm
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,
    Yvonne Keenoy
    46225 Verba Santa
    #11
    Palm Desert, CA 92260



MTC-00028694

From: Neil Kohl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am writing in opposition to the Proposed Final Judgment (PFJ) 
in the case of United States v. Microsoft.
    I am a programmer with over 20 years experience, and I currently 
work as a web site administrator for a large medical association.
    I agree wholeheartedly with the Open Letter created by Dan Kegel 
and signed by over 2000 people (http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
letter.html). I would like to single out two points which deserve 
special attention.
    As stated in the Findings of Fact, Microsoft enjoys a monopoly 
in the operating systems market (section 33-;44). 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).
    First, to meet these standards the Windows API--;almost all 
of them, not just ``Microsoft Middleware'' as narrowly 
defined in the PFJ--;must be completely open and documented in 
such a manner that third-party developers can create an environment 
that can run Windows applications. An example of such an environment 
is the WINE (WINdows Emulator) middleware that is available for the 
Linux operating system.
    Second, the enforcement mechanism must be nimble. The original 
suit which led to the PFJ was filed in 1995. Since then, Microsoft 
has released three new versions of the operating system (Windows 98, 
ME, XP) and is positioning itself to be the middleman in Internet 
transactions via the .Net initiative. If the courts are used as an 
enforcement mechanism then Microsoft is guaranteed several more 
years without serious competition in the operating systems market.
    Best regards,
    Neil Kohl
    Manager, ACP-ASIM Online
    American College of Physicians--;American Society of 
Internal Medicine [email protected] 
215.351.2638, 800.523.1546 x2638



MTC-00028695

From: Sara Yurman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:59pm
Subject: Please reject this settlement.
    Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this ruling. I am 
sure than many people have offered excellent technical reasons for 
rejecting this extraordinarily weak settlement. I have two reasons 
that I hope the court will consider:
    1) I am a small business person. At the moment I can operate on 
Linux, and not be hampered by some of the Microsoft-specific formats 
that I receive. This, however, is tenuous and getting more so. As 
Microsoft extends its reach into the internet, and continues to keep 
its formats closed my ability to communicate without Microsoft is 
somewhat serendipitous. Operating with Microsoft products is not an 
option for us. We are a distributed company and cannot afford the 
expense and security problems inherent in those products. A virus 
could be fatal to our small firm.
    2) It appears that Microsoft's monopoly power is having a 
corrosive affect on our political system. I wrote my U.S. Senators ( 
Zell Miller and Max Cleland ), urging them to support Senator 
Schumer's call to block the distribution of the XP operating system. 
Senator Miller never answered. The following was included in Senator 
Cleland's response:
    >Despite Judge Jackson's ruling last June, Microsoft remains 
the single most >dominant technology firm in the world. 
Microsoft's core businesses, its Windows >operating system and 
Office software, are certainly under legal challenges on >several 
fronts, but at the moment they are still generating tremendous 
revenues >and profits for the company. In addition, Microsoft 
plans to jump-start its >Internet access operation, MSN, which is 
also unlikely to be affected by Judge >Jackson's verdict. >
    Why is it more important to the Senator from Georgia that 
Microsoft generate profits than have conditions favorable to small 
businesses in his district? I never got a response, despite phone 
calls and emails to the Senator's office. This is the ultimate aim 
of monopoly power, and Microsoft has achieved it. Please stop them. 
I'd like to have my government back.
    Respectfully submitted,
    Sara Yurman



MTC-00028696

From: Jerry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:59pm Subject'' Comments regarding Proposed 
Settlement
    Attached is a PDF document with my comments regarding the 
Proposed Settlement of US v. Microsoft
    Thank you for your attention in this matter.
    January 25,2002
To:
    Renata B. Hesse
    Antiturst Division
    U.S Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW
    Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530-;001
    Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The following are my comments regarding the proposed settlement 
of the United States vs. Microsoft antitrust case.
    Personal Background
    I am Information Technology specialist who works primarily in 
Systems architecture, design, and development. Over the past ten 
years I have specialized in Information Security. I have been a user 
of Microsoft products (for both consumers and developers) since the 
early 1980s.
    United States v. Microsoft Background
    The District Court and the Court of Appeals concluded that 
Microsoft had ``unlawfully maintained its monopoly power by 
suppressing emerging technologies that threatened to undermine its 
monopoly control of the personal computer operating system 
market.''
    The Court of Appeals held ``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.''
    Comments
    Scope of Protection is Too Limited
    Microsoft's competition in the Operating system area varies 
greatly in type and size. This competion includes:
    . direct competitors, organizations creating different Operating 
systems (e.g. Linux)

[[Page 28411]]

    . organizations that build applications and middleware that run 
``on top'' of an operating system (e.g. Java and Netscape 
Communicator)
    .* organizations that customize operating systems for their 
clients (hardware OEMs)
    .* organizations that provide software equivalence of the 
services of one operating system on a different system or 
environment.
    The proposed restrictions on Microsoft business conduct will 
provide protection to a subset of these Microsoft competitors. The 
majority of the Proposed Settlement focuses on providing relief for
    1) organizations that provide middleware that run exclusively on 
Microsoft Windows products, and hardware OEM vendors. There are only 
minimal changes in the Microsoft conduct to protect vendors of 
competing operating systems.
    Only Large Competitors Are Protected
    The size of organizations that develop software varies greatly. 
Even Microsoft started as a small number of people. Unlike many 
other businesses, there is not a requirement for a large capital 
investment to start developing software.
    The restrictions on Microsoft conduct apply only to large 
organizations (both OEM and software developers). Not only does this 
not work to terminate the monopoly it creates new exclusionary and 
discriminatory practices which did not previously exist.
    Scope of Interfaces to be Disclosed is too Narrow
    The Proposed Settlement requires that Microsoft disclose the 
APIs for its middleware. However, in the Proposed Settlement the 
definition of Middleware is so limited that it excludes many of the 
interfaces required by competitors. The Interfaces to be disclosed 
need to include not just Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) 
but all other data structures and protocols extemalized by Microsoft 
software components. The Department of Justice chose not to pursue 
issues related to the comigling of software and yet the Proposed 
Settlement assumes to have sufficient knowledge of the separate 
pieces (middleware vs. operating system) to provide a working 
definition in the Proposed Settlement.
    As long as the definition of the Windows Operating Systems is 
outside the scope of the Proposed Settlement Microsoft will maintain 
the control over which interfaces must be disclosed. It would be 
more appropriate to require Microsoft to disclose ALL interfaces 
between all components of their products.
    Not All Middleware Components are Identified.
    Given that some of the Microsoft Middleware components that are 
subject to this settlement are mentioned in the Proposed Settlement, 
the ''.net'' interfaces, as the Microsoft followon to Java 
should be included. Given the complexity of the definition of 
Middleware provided in the Proposed Settlement, it would be 
desireable to include the complete list of all Microsoft Middleware. 
This list should be publicly available for the time period that the 
Settlement is enforced.
    Not All Current Versions of Windows are Covered in the 
Settlement
    All current versions of Windows that are based on Win-32 should 
be covered by the Settlement. This should at least include Windows 
CE and Windows XP Tablet Edition. Too Many Restrictions on 
Disclosure of Security Interfaces The Proposed Settlement places 
restrictions on the disclosure of Microsoft security interfaces in 
the name of National Security. I would suggest that the reverse is 
true. In the current environment it is important to nurture the 
development of security functionality. All Microsoft security 
programmable interfaces, protocols, and data structures should be 
fully disclosed. The only restriction should be that the content of 
some specific data elements may not be disclosed (private keys, 
etc.)
    Limits on Which Organizations can Seek Disclosure of Interfaces
    The proposed Settlement places restrictions on which competitors 
Microsoft must disclose their APIs. The competitors must be of 
sufficient size and have a valid business case. This allows 
Microsoft to chose which organizations they wish to compete. Even 
Microsoft in its earliest years would have failed these 
requirements. Given that in the current environment one of 
Microsoft's strongest competitors is primarily a volunteer 
organization (Lunix) it seems likely that Microsoft would not 
disclose any APIs to ``Free'' Software development 
organizations.
    Poor Enforcement Mechanisms
    A good settlement should include enforcement that is easily 
understood, quantifiable, and verifiable. There should be metrics 
that can be used over a period of time to evaluate the success of 
the Settlement. A good enforcement needs to provide quick resolution 
of issues related the Settlement for the business needs of both any 
plaintiff as well as Microsoft. Finally, there needs to be a 
sufficient motivation to insure Microsoft will not violate the 
Settlement.
    The Proposed Settlement provides almost none of the above. There 
is technical review by a three person team but all of their work 
will be confidential and not subject to review. There is no public 
or judicial review of the progress of the Settlement. The only 
option for handling misconduct, outside of the technical team, is to 
go back to court--;one of the slowest ways to resolve any 
violations. Finally, given that there is no financial incentive 
required in this Settlement and that Microsoft earns billions of 
dollars using their current business conduct it is hard to see why 
Microsoft will be motivated to make any changes in their conduct.
    Conclusion
    The Proposed Settlement does not provide adequate changes in 
business conduct of Microsoft to provide a remedy that meet the 
requirements of the Court of Appeals mandate. In some cases the 
Proposed Settlement adds new barriers to the competition to 
Microsoft Operating Systems and Middleware. Thus, the Proposed 
Settlement does not serve in the public interest. I recommend that 
the Proposed Settlement be rejected.
    Sincerely,
    Jerry L. Hadsell
    2800 Wood??ey Road NW
    Washington DC, 20008



MTC-00028697

From: Ken Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:59pm Subject'' Tunney Act Comments
    Thanks for reviewing our comments.
    Ken Brown
    January 28,2002
    Renata Hesse
    Trial Attorney
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street, NW Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530
    e-mail: microsoft.atr @ usdoij.gov
    Re: AdTI Tunney Act Comments
    The Alexis de Tocqueville Institution submits these comments 
under the Tunney Act.
    The Alexis de Tocqueville Institution is an independent non-
profit education and research organization described in detail at 
www.adti.net. The mission of AdTI is to provide helpful policy 
analysis to advance the ideas of democracy and freedom around the 
world.
    Sincerely,
    Kenneth Brown
    President
    Telephone Number(s)- office 202-;548-;0006, cell 
703-;608-;4222
    ALEXIS de TOCQUEVILLE
    Why the Microsoft Case Should Be Settled
    Alexis de Tocqueville Institution
    Washington, DC
    January 22, 2002
    The Hard Truth About Invention in the U.S. Marketplace
    Two courts have reaffirmed that Netscape nor its browser were 
shut out of the marketplace. The browser wars produced a winner and 
a loser; and Netscape was the loser. However, within thousands of 
briefs and legal arguments criticizing the U.S. vs. Microsoft 
settlement is the repeated concern about the future of new 
Netscape's in the technology sector. Almost every other issue is 
tangential, and we must differentiate the arguments properly.
    We see an interchanging of terms being used, specifically, 
''....the settlement should make the marketplace safe for firms 
to compete with Microsoft...'' vs. ''...the settlement 
should be safe for firms to introduce new products...ie, like 
Netscape Navigator...'' The Department of Justice has proposed 
a settlement that properly speaks to its duty--;to introduce a 
remedy which allows firms to safely introduce new products. 
Microsoft has agreed to the rules; which include a mandate that 
Microsoft disclose any information necessary for rival firms to 
produce fully interoperable products with Windows for competing 
software and servers.
    The reason why critics want a settlement which goes further is 
because they want Microsoft completely out of the way. The case is 
merely obfuscation. With billions of dollars in resources, 
Microsoft's competitors want every advantage because 1) the 
marketplace for new technology is overwhelming and having a chief 
competitor eliminated makes things a little easier and 2) the 
competitors lobbying for a far-reaching settlement are among the 
most aggressive and fierce technologists in the world.
    The reality is that the marketplace, particularly the 
marketplace for new

[[Page 28412]]

technology has never been safe from a competitor. What Microsoft's 
competitors want is an oxymoron because no technology product is 
ever ``competition-free'' or guaranteed success in the 
marketplace. This benefits consumers, the country and ironically 
inventors themselves, which makes it relevant to observe the reality 
of the marketplace (beyond the courtroom) for a moment.
    Great Inventors Must Be Fierce Strategists
    Every inventor and innovator small and large must face the 
formidable odds to succeed in the marketplace for new technology. 
Since the day the first idea was registered in the U.S. patent 
office, countless inventions and innovations have become cinders in 
the furnace of competition. Relentless markets in America only 
sustain the fiercest competitors, without exception. Technologists 
rewarded with fabulous wealth and fame did so at the expense of 
employing hard-hitting, merciless strategies. Regardless of 
ingenuity, technologists without the ability to navigate in the 
marketplace were failures; and lucky to even receive credit as 
creators of their own inventions.
    The marketplace for food, furniture and other goods each have 
their challenges. But, the technology marketplace is unique because 
it demands both inventive genius and keen business savvy. The 
combination of the two is rare in individuals and corporations, and 
particularly scarce among pure inventors such as physicists, 
mathematicians or engineers. From the light bulb to the PC operating 
system, every innovator that history has been kind to, had the 
indomitable capability to merge intellectual power with commercial 
insight. In the end, technologists with these qualities became far 
more successful than their counterparts with better inventions or 
greater talent.
    Competitive Inventors Preserve U.S. Leadership
    However, America's owes its technological leadership in the 
world to its competitive battleground. Although education, vigorous 
intellectual property rights and democracy are also credit to 
American invention, its ability to surface inventors with commercial 
savvy, make it a source of the most competitive innovations in the 
world.
    In the end, the U.S. is a leader in world-changing innovations, 
at the expense of sustaining a ``bare-knuckled'' 
marketplace.
    After an excruciating and lengthy examination by the court 
system, the federal government and 9 states (actually 41 when you 
consider the states that never filed suit) agree on the U.S. vs. 
Microsoft settlement. Regardless of the differences among the 
parties, we can't expect any ruling to settle the differences 
between Microsoft and its competitors. However, this dissatisfaction 
is in the best interest of our country and will only spawn better 
ideas and products that will propel the U.S. to new heights. U.S. 
technological leadership depends on the undying will of its 
innovators to be no. 1.
    The ``Electric'' War Between Edison and Tesla The 
debate over Windows is similar to many stories about wars between 
rival innovators throughout history, particularly aspects of the 
Thomas Edison story. Although the Edison-Tesla rivalry did not 
involve anti-trust law, the contest details the reality of the 
``invention business'' in the most competitive capitalist 
society in the world.
    Contrary to popular belief, the idea of electric lighting was 
not Edison's. A number of individuals had developed forms of 
electric lighting, but none had developed a system that was 
practical for home use. Using lower current, a small carbonized 
filament, and an improved vacuum inside the bulb, Edison was able to 
produce a reliable, long-lasting source of light. Thomas Edison 
didn't ``invent'' the light bulb, but became a legend for 
making a 50-year-old idea a fantastic commercial success.
    Edison's fiercest rival, was an ex-employee named Nikola Tesla 
from Smijlan, Croatia. Tesla was a genius who invented the 
fluorescent bulb in his lab forty years before industry 
``invented'' them. At World's Fairs and similar 
exhibitions, he demonstrated the world's first neon signs. Perhaps 
Tesla's greatest invention was the AC (alternating current) system 
we use in our homes today. DC (direct current), an inferior system, 
ironically, was designed by Thomas Edison. After years of fierce 
wars and debate between the Tesla and Edison teams, AC became the 
accepted system of transporting electricity. In fact, Edison later 
admitted that AC was the better system.
    While both men were geniuses ahead of their time, the biggest 
difference between Edison and Tesla was their perspective and 
approach to invention. Edison had a keen understanding of capital 
markets and the strategies necessary to finance, promote and 
commercialize his inventions. Tesla was a great theoretician who 
worked perpetually to finance experiments.
    Edison held a world record 1,093 patents and died a wealthy, 
famous man. Tesla received over 800 patents, died penniless and was 
literally erased from the history books. In fact, Tesla was poor the 
last thirty years of his life and arguably would have eclipsed 
Edison's patent record if he had the capital. Remembered for many 
things, Edison was known for saying, ``1 have more respect for 
the fellow with a single idea who gets there than for the fellow 
with a thousand ideas who does nothing.'' Edison's vision 
reflects the view of anti-trust law, that the greater value is in a 
stable marketplace, not the resurrection of competing ideas.
    The Other Truth about Netscape
    The Appeals Court ruling reflects another hard 
truth--;Netscape fell, because it did. The DC Circuit rejected 
the course-of-conduct theory, under which Microsoft's specific 
practices could be viewed as part of a ``broad monopolistic 
scheme.'' This obviously has made anyone that viewed Microsoft 
as an evil-doer exponentially dissatisfied with DOJ's settlement. 
But again, is the responsibility of the DOJ to make the world safe 
from Microsoft?
    Netscape maintained its Internet dominance until 1997, when 
Internet Explorer's fourth version was able to lap Netscape. 
Netscape Navigator never regained its prominence. In addition, by 
that time, the Netscape product was slow, outdated, and unstable, 
falling to a swifter surging Internet Explorer.
    But perhaps the most unmentioned reality regarding Netscape's 
fall was their announcement to all (Microsoft included) that their 
strategy was to be the middleware that would be the 
``new'' Windows, removing Microsoft's flagship product 
from dominance. Hindsight is 20/20 but when you consider how far 
ahead Netscape was in front of Microsoft, there are infinite what 
if's'' to consider if it had been mum about its strategy to 
take on Redmond. Microsoft had all but ignored the Internet and it 
is very questionable if they would have been able to play catch-up 
to a well-funded and branded Netscape team. The outcome of this 
possibility almost completely counters any damage claims in their 
civil suit recently announced. After all, Netscape's grand plan was 
never realized, thus the future is incalculable especially when 
taking into consideration the hubris of Netscape.
    Innovators are the Lifeblood of U.S.
    Today, new technology firms use every means available to compete 
including spending billions of dollars on research and development. 
Sun Microsystems, IBM and AOL and Microsoft combine to spend over 
$100 billion annually just on research and development. Firms spend 
exorbitant amounts of money to create and protect to new products. 
But again, this competition is to the benefit of inventors and the 
U.S. marketplace. 1Recently, the United States Patent Office 
released its annual list of the top ten private sector patent 
recipients. It reported that for the ninth consecutive year, IBM 
received more patents than any other organization in the world. 
``1 am proud that American corporations are leaders among U.S. 
patent holders,'' said James E. Rogan, Undersecretary of 
Commerce for Intellectual Property. ``Patents promote 
technological progress and are a potent source for competitive free 
enterprise.''
    USPTO's comments echo the importance of preserving the status 
quo of the U.S. marketplace.
    In the end, it is in the interest of innovation that we close 
the chapter on U.S. vs. Microsoft. The judicial process has sorted 
through the facts and come to judgment. Those dissatisfied with the 
settlement should be reminded by W. M. Deming's famous quip, 
``Learning is not essential, survival is not mandatory.'' 
Deming's point speaks not only to the Microsoft case; but the hard 
truth about invention and success in the technology business. The 
court system has done its job, and enough precious time has been 
dedicated to legal jurisprudence. It is now the time for Microsoft 
and its opponents to tuck in their chin, learn from their mistakes 
and return to the marketplace.

[[Page 28413]]



                   *U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) List of Top 10 Patent Recipients
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Preliminary                                                         Final
                                     # of                                            Final Rank   Number of
    Preliminary Rank In 2001        Patents in                Organization                in 2000     Patents in
                                       2001                                                              2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................           3,411  International Business Machines                 1        2,886
                                                   (IBM).
2...............................           1,953  NEC Corporation.....................            2        2,021
3...............................           1,877  Canon Kabushiki Kaisha..............            3        1,890
4...............................          1,6543  Micron Technology...................            7        1,304
5...............................           1,450  Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd........            4        1,441
6...............................           1,440  Matsushita Electrical Industrial               11        1,137
                                                   Co., Ltd..
7...............................           1,363  Sony Corporation....................            6        1,385
8...............................           1,271  Hitachi, Ltd........................           13        1,036
9...............................           1,184  Mitsbushi, Denki Kabushiki Kaisha...           14        1,010
10..............................           1,166  Fujitsu Limited.....................           10       1,147
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Source: USPTO, January 10, 2002. The listed patent counts are preliminary counts, which are subject to
  correction. The final listing of patent counts for the top patent organizations in 2001 should be available by
  early April 2002. Patent information reflects patent ownership at patent grant and does not include any
  changes That occur after the



MTC-00028698

From: Helen Gamsey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:02pm
Subject'' Microsoft settlement
    Helen B. Gamsey
    6006 S River Road
    Norfolk, VA 23505-;4711January 27, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you today to voice my opinion in regards to the 
Microsoft settlement issue. I feel that this debate has gone on long 
enough and that it is time to end this litigation. After three years 
of litigation, it is time to focus on more pressing issues. In my 
opinion, this lawsuit should never have occurred in the first place. 
Nonetheless, this settlement is the perfect means to end this 
dispute. Microsoft will remain together and continue designing and 
marketing their innovative software, while fostering competition and 
making it easier for other companies to compete. Microsoft has 
pledged to share more information about Windows operating system 
products and has agreed to be monitored for compliance. During these 
difficult times, it is vital to do all we can to boost our economy. 
Restricting Microsoft will not accomplish this. This country is at 
war with a world wide network of Islamic extremists intent on 
destroying us. The Department of Justice needs to focus on 
``fixing'' the FBI and improving the security of our 
nation and protecting American citizens against more terrorist 
attacks. Has this short passage of time since September 11 dulled 
memories so quickly that we are back to the old games of using 
lawyers and politicians and the Department of Justice to squash 
competitors? Are things really back to normal? I don't think 
so...until the next terrorist attack... Antitrust laws are not meant 
to protect competitors against their inability to compete in the 
marketplace due to their own incompetence...Look who is suing? AOL, 
Sun Microsystems, Oracle, IBM are multibillion corporations.., not 
mom and pop outfits threatened by a bully...The antitrust laws were 
meant to protect consumers and to allow fair competition.
    Consumers are not complaining. However antitrust laws are now 
being used to protect competitors, and to make trial lawyers even 
richer,,,at the expense of consumers and the economy. How many 
companies have been forced into bankruptcy now by trial lawyers over 
asbestos? 20? 30? 50?
    AOL, Time Warner, IBM, Sun Microsystems, Oracle, etc have 
contributed heavily to politicians for years...long before Microsoft 
was forced to play this game, as a result of their persistent 
efforts to prosecute and persecute Microsoft.
    Should the DOJ continue to ``work'' on behalf of 
Attorney Generals who are receiving large contributions and specific 
instructions from Microsoft's competitors via ProComp and other such 
organizations? After all, it was Sun Microsystems'' financing 
of ``Project Sherman'' which assembled of panel of so 
called antitrust experts to testify before the DOJ. This panel had 
worked secretly for months, to ``produce'' antitrust 
charges which would appear credible to the DOJ. Unknowing to the 
DOJ, these ``experts'' were being paid $600 to $700 an 
hour by Microsoft's competitors. Reputable antitrust experts like 
Carlson produced novel antitrust theories of harm from incomplete 
foreclosure of market share that even bamboozled the Appeals Court 
judges; their decision relied on this ``novel'' 
theory...and most of their findings of antitrust violations were 
based on Carlson's novel'' theories. Project Sherman, which 
cost Sun $3 million, initially convinced the Department of Justice 
to take this case..
    I would think that the Enron scandal would make politicians and 
regulators more wary of the dangers involved from large 
contributors... I was surprised to learn the extent of Enron's 
contributions. They gave $50,000 to Paul Krugman, from the New York 
Times, who writes about economic matters, and not too surprisingly, 
Krugman apparently wrote positive articles in the past about Enron 
....
    I think it was American competitors of GE and Honeywell who gave 
secret testimony to the EU commission that lead the EU to disallow 
the GE-Honeywell merger, ge with Honeywell... It was a complaint 
from Sun Microsystems that lead the European Union to launch an 
antitrust case against Microsoft by the EU. There is something about 
certain American companies that borders on treason, in my 
opinion...when they resort to getting the European Union to crush 
their competition ..if they can't get the DOJ or FTC to do it... It 
is telling that Sun Microsystems has 200 lawyers in their legal 
department, more than many large firms, even in Washington. I think 
their shareholders might prefer they spent more on improving their 
products and competing...as their stock continues to decline. It's 
the old familiar story as Glassman says. ``Pick an 
unsympathetic target with deep pockets. Generate lots of publicity.
    Change the laws, if need be.'' ``Then get the company 
to capitulate.'' Gee, Jesse Jackson is so good at these tactics 
of file:///C/win/temp/tmp. getting large corporations to 
donate to his ``charities; it is not surprising he was involved 
with the class action lawsuits in California claiming Microsoft 
discriminated against blacks and then women too. Microsoft was 
consistently been rated one of the top corporations ``to work 
for and one of the most admired companies by Fortune until the trial 
lawyers and AG and MSFT's competitors started their hatchet jobs and 
made Microsoft into an ``unsympathetic target.'' http://
www.techcentralstation.com/1051/
techwrapper.jsp?PID=1051-;250&CID=1051-;012901A The 
Appeals Court judges in Microsoft's appeal were astonished to learn 
that 160 million copies of Netscape browsers were distributed 
overall, and that their user base doubled to 33 million ...... in 
1998 ..... when Microsoft's competitors were accusing Microsoft of 
foreclosing competion. They claimed that Microsoft ``threatened 
to cut off Netscapes air supply,'' a statement MSFT never made.
    Microsoft's competitors lobbied politicians for years before 
Microsoft was finally forced to join their game and forced to pay 
this'' protection money. '' For about 20 years Gates and 
his colleagues just sat out there in ``the other 
Washington,'' creating and selling. As the company got bigger, 
Washington, DC, politicians and journalists began sneering at 
Microsoft's political innocence. A congressional aide told the 
press, ``They don't want to play the DC game, that's clear, and 
they've gotten away with it so far. The problem is, in the long run 
they won't be able to.'' Politicians told Bill Gates, 
``Nice little company ya got there. Shame if anything

[[Page 28414]]

happened to it.'' And Microsoft got the message: If you want to 
produce something in America, you'd better play the game. In 1995, 
after repeated assaults by the Federal Trade Commission and the 
Justice Department, Microsoft broke down and started playing the 
Washington game. It hired lobbyists and Washington PR firms. Its 
executives made political contributions. And every other high-tech 
company is getting the message, too, which is great news for 
lobbyists and fundraisers.'' (but not for consumers or 
innovators or successful companies..) From ``The Theft of 
Microsoft'' by David Boaz. http://www.cato.org/dailys/
07-;27-;00.html
    ``What lesson should they draw? The antitrust laws are 
fatally flawed. When our antitrust laws are used by competitors to 
harm successful companies, when our most innovative companies are 
under assault from the federal government, when lawyers and 
politicians decide to restructure the software, credit-card and 
airline industries, it's time to repeal the antitrust laws and let 
firms compete in a free marketplace.''
    ``Our tobacco, gun and antitrust laws have essentially been 
rewritten by state AGs and their trial-lawyer allies. The result, as 
former Labor Secretary Robert Reich wrote in USA Today, has been 
``regulation by litigation'' - a sorry state of affairs 
that has cut elected representatives out of the system.''
    ``Political science quiz: Today's category is decision 
making at the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of 
Justice.''
    ``Which is more important in the merger approval process?
    1) a sophisticated economic study prepared by staff economists, 
complete with extensive industry data, statistical analysis, and 
tight reasoning,
    2) a scratchy, three-minute cell-phone call from the secretary 
of commerce?'' ANSWER: 2) a scratchy, three-minute cell-phone 
call from the secretary of commerce?'' ``In 1991, the Time 
Warner buyout of Turner Broadcasting zipped past the FTC, despite a 
staff report branding the merger as anti-competitive. After Ted 
Turner and Gerald Levin, the two CEOs involved, visited top 
officials in Washington, the commissioners tossed the staff work out 
the window.'' From: ``Texas Swing:
    The not-so-shocking reason the Lone Star state chose not to sue 
Microsoft.'' By Thomas W. Hazlett REASON August/September 1998 
http://reason.com/9808/col.hazlett.html
    ``Did they disagree with the competitive analysis? Was it a 
difference of opinion as to the cross-elasticity of demand? Or were 
the politically appointed regulators moved by a higher voice? It 
would be nice if the pundits who explained our politics to us could 
see where the politics goes. ``That's what 
``access,'' and the campaign contributions used to 
purchase it, are all about.'' Somehow this case reminds me of 
what terrorists living in the US are doing so well.
    There are many front groups for violent terrorist groups like 
Hamas and Islamic Jihad residing in the US, claiming to be think 
tanks or charitable groups. Organizations like C.A.I.R. or the 
Council on``American Islamic Relations, masquerade as 
mainstream public affairs organizations. CAIR has taken the lead in 
trying to mislead the public about the terrorist underpinnings of 
militant Islamic movements, in particular Hamas. ``http://
www.geocities.com/CollegePark/6453/emerson.html
    CAIR and other such organizations have lobbied to change our US 
laws, like the use of secret evidence, to make it harder to deport 
them or to prosecute them; under the guise of protecting our freedom 
of speech.
    These terrorists posing as phony charitable groups or think 
tanks also contribute to politicians and lobbyists and use the media 
to advance ``their cause. CAIR has routinely exaggerated or 
fabricated ``hate crimes'' against Muslims. Just one 
example:
    ``CAIR's 1997 report on ``hate crimes'' labeled 
the death of Ahmed Abdel Hameed Hamida as a ``hate 
crime.'' Hamida drove his car into a crowd of Israelis at a 
Jerusalem bus stop on February 26, 1996, killing one woman and 
injuring twenty-three other Israelis. He attempted to escape on foot 
but was shot to death by Israeli civilians. He shouted ``Allahu 
Akbar,'' (God is Great!) as his car struck the crowd. He had 
made statements previously affirming his intent to kill Jews.
    Hamida was a terroris, yet CAIR classified his death as a 
``hate crime.''
    Why is this relevant to Microsoft's antitrust case? Microsoft's 
competitors and these phony front groups are using their influence 
over the media, and their power from contributions to politicians to 
give the appearance that they are concerned with civil rights or 
consumers, when they are only advancing their own agenda, which is 
harmful to most of us. Microsoft's competitors claim to have the 
interest of consumers at heart, when in reality their own 
incompetence lead to their loss of market share. AOL 5 was such a 
terrible product that even computer experts could not deal with the 
changes it made to the computer. It changed your default settings 
and took over. Mossberg from the Wall Street Journal, who has never 
been a fan of Microsoft, acknowledged this at the time and there 
were lawsuits over this which somehow failed to make the news.. 
Anyone who has ever used AOL knows about their inferior products and 
their poor customer service.
    ``In 1975 Microsoft had 3 employees and revenues of 
$16,000. Over the next 25 years they grew to 36,000 employees and 
revenues of $20 billion by obsessively figuring out what computer 
users needed and delivering it to them.'' ``Over the years 
Gates and his colleagues made a lot of people mad, especially their 
competitors. Some of those competitors delivered a 222-page white 
paper in 1996 to Joel Klein, head of the Justice Department's 
antitrust division, and urged him to do to Microsoft in court what 
they couldn't do in the marketplace. (Susan Creighton wrote that 
White Paper).
    Justice worked closely with the competitors for four years, 
often showing them sentences or paragraphs in drafts of the 
department's plans and soliciting their approval. The politics of 
the case is a far cry from the Platonic ideal of rigorous economists 
devising the best possible antitrust rules and wise, disinterested 
judges carefully weighing the evidence.''
    Microsoft's competitors have used the Department of Justice to 
try to take not just their money but their intellectual property as 
well.
    From ``The Theft of Microsoft'' by David Boaz. http://
www.cato.org/dailys/07-;27-;00.html ``In antitrust 
circles, Creighton is a card-carrying anti-Microsoft agitator. 
Creighton is now the deputy director for the FTC.
    I hope she has recused herself from any involvement in this 
case.'' Five years ago--;while her then-partner Gary Reback 
played a more public role--;Creighton penned the infamous white 
paper commissioned by Netscape.'' Susan Creighton, and her 
partner Gary Reback, from Silicon Valley's Wilson Sonsini Goodrich 
& Rosati. Creighton ``helped ignite the government's 
landmark case against the monopolist from Redmond, Wash.
    ``Microsoft's Captain Ahab'' by Krysten Crawford, from 
The American Lawyer August 22, 2001from http://www.law.com 
``Bill Gates draws praise from the cultural elite when he gives 
away his money--;and he has given away more than $20 billion; 
the Bill and Melissa Gates foundation has given more than any other 
philanthropist foundation. Yet those contributions pale when 
compared to the g Microsoft's great contributions to the 
technological and economic advances of the last decade. It would be 
a shame to see Microsoft's assets and intellectual property 
distributed to greedy conniving corporations and lawyers and 
publicity seeking Attorney Generals trying to further their careers.
    Mr. Tunney is now complaining about the way Microsoft has 
reported their political contribution. I doubt he is really 
impartial. Robert Bork was a prominent foe of antitrust law in the 
1970's, and a colleague of Judge Posner. Bork though as 
``changed'' sides and became very ``pro-
antitrust'' when hired by Microsoft's competitors.
    I sincerely hope the Department of Justice accepts this 
settlement and puts an end to this mess and turns their attention to 
real threats to the Nation- the terrorists who want to destroy the 
West. Caving into Microsoft's major competitors who are behind the 
Attorney Generals hurt consumers and the economy further. Let them 
innovate like Microsoft does, rather than litigate.
    Thank you for your attention.
    Sincerely,
    Helen B. Gamsey
    757-;440-;5910
    Sincerely,
    Helen Gamsey



MTC-00028699

From: Bartucz, Tanya Y.
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 5:02pm
Subject: Tunney Act comments
    Attached please find the Tunney Act comments on the Microsoft 
settlement of Griffin B. Bell, Edwin Meese III, and C. Boyden Gray. 
A paper copy will be submitted by fax.
    Tanya Bartucz
    Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP
    1501 K Street, NW
    Washington, DC 20005

[[Page 28415]]

    (202) 736-;8067
    Fax (202) 736-;8711
    This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information 
that is privileged or confidential.
    If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail 
and any attachments and notify us immediately.



MTC-00028700

From: John D. Mitchell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5'03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    John D. Mitchell
    2129 Ascot Drive q
    Moraga, CA 94556
    2002.01.28
    Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW
    Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    microsoft.atrusdoj.gov
    Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    SUMMARY
    The currently proposed settlement with Microsoft woefully fails 
to address the critically important need of restoring hope to all of 
the parties afflicted by the Microsoft's abuse of monopolistic 
power.
    Restoring of hope is a critical criteria by which any and all 
proposed solutions to the Microsoft monopoly problem must be judged. 
Moving forward, a just and fair solution to the Microsoft monopoly 
can only be created through a combination of structural and 
behavioral remedies.
    AXIOMS
    (Rule of) Law
    At the surface, (the rule of) law is the complex, accretive, 
disjointly semi-hierarchical, codification of the conglomeration of 
(the processes of) (dealing with) (quasi-) behaviors.
    At the heart, (the rule of) law is a simple belief system.
    Fundamentally, (the rule of) law is about hope.
    Anti-Trust Law
    At the surface, anti-trust laws are primarily about dealing with 
things like the (private sector) abuse of monopoly power to harm 
consumers. At the heart, anti-trust laws are about dealing with 
entities which unduly restrict free-market competition.
    Fundamentally, anti-trust laws are about dealing with entities 
which eliminate hope.
    MICROSOFT ANTI-TRUST CASE
    Background
    The facts are simple and clear:
    * Microsoft has systematically and aggressively pursued 
monopolistic goals since its formation.
    * Microsoft's behavioral outrageousness stems directly from the 
corporate, ``Cult of Bill'' culture [ala ``Cult of 
Personality] that has been created and fostered by all of the senior 
management of the company including Bill Gates himself.
    * Microsoft has been very successful at gaining monopolistic 
power in many critical areas of the computer (software) business.
    * Microsoft has repeatedly, aggressively, and unapologetically 
abused its monopolistic power to the detriment of the marketplace.
    * Microsoft has clearly shown its obstinate incapability to 
adhere to behavioral restraints.
    Lack of Hope
    The settlement and (behavioral) remedies proposed by the US DoJ 
vs Microsoft anti-trust action are not only worthless to the 
marketplace but are outright detrimental. Why is that so clearly the 
case? Simple... The proposed settlement does absolutely nothing to 
address the fundamental abuse of Microsoft: the severe curtailing 
and, often, outright elimination of hope. For example:
    * The hope of major (software) competitors has been mostly 
devastated over the years by e.g., Microsoft's abuse of its 
monopolistic power to exclude the competition from pre-built 
computers containing Microsoft operating systems (which increasingly 
forcing the ``up selling'', if not outright inclusion of 
more and more Microsoft products and services).
    * The hope of computer vendors to sell whatever (software) it is 
that they want and are able to with their computers to satisfy their 
customers.
    * The hope of upstart, would-be (software) competitors. It's a 
well known truism that a great many startup companies work so as to 
*not* attract the notice of Microsoft for as long as possible. It's 
incalculable how many companies (and projects within existing 
companies) have been canceled due to fear of Microsoft's (re)action.
    * The hope of consumers for a fair price based on a fair, open 
market.
    * The hope of (ignorant, inexperienced, etc.) consumers for 
computer systems that actually work (reliably, robustly, 
inexpensively, securely, etc.).
    * The hope of (informed, experienced) consumers for computers 
and software that can (reliably, effectively, inexpensively, 
securely, etc.) inter-operate between all consumers (that don't 
explicitly choose to isolate themselves) without being, a priori, 
forced into using Microsoft products (due to such forces as the so 
called ``network externalities'' effects which reinforce 
monopolistic power).
    * The hope of investors for a market which is unskewed by the 
insidious abuses of monopolistic power.
    * The hope of citizens that the rule of law (still) has meaning 
and that breaking the law has serious, effective, and efficient 
consequences upon the violators, inhibitive effects upon would be 
violators, and some restitution for the violated. By neglecting 
dealing with hope, the proposed settlement precludes the 
reconstitution of a fair and open market, allows a vicious predator 
to continue their predations, and weakens the rule of law.
    Therefore, any proposed settlement remedies must be judged in 
their effectiveness and efficiency at restoring hope.
    Side-note on Consumer Pricing
    I have heard many arguments, both pro and con, from various 
people using (``guesstimates'') of the effects of 
Microsoft's monopolistic abuses on the prices that consumers have 
paid for various products. I have found all of those such arguments 
that I have heard to be severely lacking directly in proportion to 
their failure to address the fundamental hopes and expectations of 
consumers.
    For example, of what import is the fact that Microsoft may or 
may not have ``over-charged'' some customers for some of 
their products if there was no hope of having a fair and open market 
to determine the true pricing? The very fact that there was not (any 
hope of) a fair and open market meant that there was absolutely no 
possibility whatsoever that anyone could have paid a fair price for 
any product or service from Microsoft nor for any product or service 
impacted by the monopolistic effects of the so skewed marketplace.
    Behavioral Remedies are Insufficient Given the facts of the 
case, it is crystal clear that the current proposed settlement's 
reliance upon strictly behavioral remedies is insufficient to 
effectively and efficiently restore any hope.
    My analogy is that of modifying the behavior of children... It 
is clear that while an appropriate corrective action (e.g., a slap 
on the wrist) by a reasonable, supervising guardian may well affect 
a change of behavior (for the better) in an otherwise normal, well-
behaved child; such a remedy does, at best, nothing to positively 
change the behavior of a willfully recalcitrant teenager (and, at 
worst, merely incenses and incents them to be more clever in their 
abuses). At least, Microsoft must be treated as such a willful 
violator.
    Many others have gone through and picked apart each and every 
one of the behavioral remedies in the proposed settlement. I won't 
go further into analyzing them here due to my contention that those 
remedies are, by themselves, so clearly insufficient. That said, I 
have co-signed Dan Kegel's open letter--;http://www.kegel.com/
remedy/letter.html.
    Structural Remedies are Necessary
    Structural remedies are necessary to any proposed resolution to 
the Microsoft monopoly. Only by incontrovertibly dispersing and 
otherwise separating each of the major constituents can there be any 
hope of significantly and effectively modifying the behavior of 
Microsoft and its monopolistic effects.
    Structural remedies are necessary so that each of the resulting 
entities can be effectively constrained from (attempting to) 
reconstitute the original company. In addition, the resulting 
entities must be sufficiently isolated in terms of its market power 
by having to stand and compete in a fair and open market without 
being able to rely on the direct and synergistic power effects that 
Microsoft currently abuses. Structural and Behavioral Remedies are 
Necessary and Sufficient I hope that it's clear from the preceding 
that the only ways to curtail the continued devastation of all of 
our collective hopes by Microsoft is to imposed significant 
structural remedies along with broad behavioral remedies.
    I will leave it to another missive to go into details and 
rationale of my proposed remedies but the broad strokes are:
    * Divest the current assets of Microsoft into three (4) new 
entities. One entity for creating operating systems for devices 
(PCs, handhelds, etc.). One entity for the end-user applications 
such as Microsoft Office suite of

[[Page 28416]]

applications. One entity for the development tools and libraries. 
And finally, one for end-user services such as MSN. Appropriate, 
suitably related portions of each of the general facets such as 
customer service & support and Microsoft Research would be 
dispersed to each of the new entities.
    * Require that the (major) shareholders, the board members, and 
at least top three levels of executive management can only have 
anything whatsoever to do with at most one of the created entities. 
Also, inhibit their ability to switch between the created entities.
    * Enjoin the resulting entities from colluding with any of the 
entities on any products or services to the exclusion of any other 
companies in any respective market. In conclusion:
    * The currently proposed settlement fails completely to provide 
any hope for anyone, except those who gain by Microsoft continuing 
to abuse its monopoly, that anything will change for the better.
    * Judging any proposed solution to Microsoft's monopoly must 
incorporate and account for the effects hope.
    * Based on my experience and analysis, the only possible 
solutions necessarily must be based a combination of both structural 
and behavioral remedies.
    Sincerely,
    John D. Mitchell
    Moraga, CA
    2002.01.28



MTC-00028701

From: Devin (038) Marilee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    ATTN: U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division
    In my opinion, the terms of the Microsoft Settlement are 
reasonable and fair to all parties involved. It is time to move 
Microsoft and the industry forward. The terms of this agreement are 
in the public interest and should be accepted.
    Thank You--;
    Marilee Sauer
    8618 Henrietta Avenue
    St. Louis, MO 63144



MTC-00028702

From: Bill Whitlock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:04pm
Subject: Microsoft antitrust case --;
    I would like to say get this case over with and let Microsoft 
get on with business. Do not let the states do separate settlements. 
Because it will just turn into a money grab. How dose consumer 
protection benefit from fifty one separate legal cases? The only 
people that profit are the lawyers and state attorneys looking to 
make a name for themselves.
    Making the source codes available will give new products an 
ability to integrate with microsoft. Will you require apple to do 
the same? The U.S. economy is in the toilet. Tens of thousands of 
jobs have been lost. Excess beating up on Microsoft will not help 
this situation. Dragging this issue out any longer will not help 
U.S. consumers.
    I am writing this on a Mac G4. I have both Apple and Microsoft 
operating systems. I also have Netscape and Internet explorer on my 
home PC.
    P.S. The U.S. lost a unfair trade case in the world court. Is 
this one of those cases where we are suppose to do what you say not 
as you do?



MTC-00028703

From: Alex Lazutin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Rulings
    To whom it may concern:
    In my opinion, the Microsoft settlement was just and fair to all 
parties.
    I believe Microsoft should be exempt from any future litigation.
    Taking into consideration all the wonderful things Microsoft 
does for children and its employees, why should the company be put 
though any future expense.
    Sincerely,
    Paula Lazutin



MTC-00028704

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I find it amazing that the Federal Govt would go through such 
extrodianry lengths to prosecute Bill GAtes and Microsoft. I cant 
speak on the legal technacalities of the lawsuit but the Microsoft s 
impact on the United States is clear. Over the past 10 years 
computers the internet and technology have been made more available 
to households and schools across the country. I find it odd that 
this can be considered some sort of monoply that is harming our 
nation. Microsoft has done wonders for our scociety making computers 
cheaper easier to use and more avialable. Thank You for your time.
    Marc T Povondra
    MIDN USN



MTC-00028705

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that Microsoft should be taken to task for their illegal 
and bullying ways to crush any competition in the O/S and browser 
market. They (M$) develop lousy software and through their business 
methods keep competitors from delivering better software.
    REG



MTC-00028706

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the government should not continue a lawsuit again 
Microsoft. I think there should be a settlement so Microsoft can get 
on with its business. There was no good reason to sue Microsoft in 
the first place. Just government at its worst going after someone 
just because it was successful.



MTC-00028707

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that the suit against Microsoft was a waste of taxpayers 
money. They were being sued simply because they were successful.



MTC-00028708

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Department of Justice Settlement is a total non-settlement 
which deserves investigation in it own right. I feel that the anti-
competitive practices are being actively encouraged by the Bush 
Administration settlement allowing Microsoft to increase its 
stranglehold on operating systems. Please do not sell out the 
intrests to future generations allowing greed collusion to dictate 
to future generations what our public officials do not have the 
courage to do. Do not accept the Department of Justice Settlement.
    Maintain the future health of competitors such as Apple and the 
open systems such as Linux. We as consumers deserve a choice. Have 
the courage to stop the arrogance of Microsoft please rule against 
the proposed settlement.



MTC-00028709

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the settelment is in the best intrest of all 
concerned. lets stop the antics of aol and other companys and 
individuals who have a hidden agenda what have there contributions 
been to all compared to microsoft.



MTC-00028710

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As I can see that the U.S.Attorney for the Department of justice 
is looking out for the right of the Computer would and that no one 
should be ably to hold the computer world down and that mead 
Mictosoft



MTC-00028711

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    At a meeting of the Executive Board of The Hatfield Chamber of 
Commerce today the Board voted unanimously to voice their support of 
the Proposed Microsoft/Department of Justice Antitrust Settlement.
    It is our belief that this settlement is a tough fair and 
reasonable compromise that is in the best interest of 
everyone--;the technology industry the economy and especially 
consumers. Thank you.
    Hatfield
    Chamber of Commerce P.O. Box 445 Hatfield PA 19440



MTC-00028712

From: 
[email protected]@inetg
w
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 28417]]

    If there has ever been any doubt that AOL does not want a fair 
and expedient solution to it s legal challenge to Microsoft then it 
s latest legal action should remove a all doubt. The irony of all 
their actions is that there has never been a ground swell of 
consumer complaints stating that the consumer has been hurt by 
Microsoft business practices. It is obvious that AOL Time Warner is 
trying to use the courts for it s own competitive purposes. It is 
also time to challenge whether AOL is monopolistic in it s own 
business as the largest internet provider. If AOL should in fact buy 
the Linux operating system I suppose we will see yet another 
challenge to Microsoft in the courts. For the sake of the technology 
industry the nation s economy and America s consumers let s get 
these issues out of the courts and into the competetive marketplace 
where they should be.
    Jack D. Reece
    419 Chesterwoods Court
    High Point
    NC 27262 336-;841-;7810



MTC-00028714

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft is making a mockery of the DOJ. Who is getting paid 
off? All your excuses are lame this is an embarrassment.



MTC-00028715

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the proposed DOJ settlement offer is fair. I hope 
that this matter can be resolved and that this great company can get 
on by the business of innovation. Thank you
    Eva Stubits



MTC-00028716

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Department of Justice Settlement is a total non-settlement 
which deserves investigation in it own right. I feel that the anti-
competitive practices are being actively encouraged by the Bush 
Administration settlement allowing Microsoft to increase its 
stranglehold on operating systems. Please do not sell out the 
intrests to future generations allowing greed collusion to dictate 
to future generations what our public officials do not have the 
courage to do. Do not accept the Department of Justice Settlement.
    Maintain the future health of competitors such as Apple and the 
open systems such as Linux. We as consumers deserve a choice. Have 
the courage to stop the arrogance of Microsoft please rule against 
the proposed settlement.



MTC-00028717

From: 
[email protected]@inetg
w
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I can not see where Microsoft has hurt anyone except for their 
feelings. The Government settlement is more than fair.It is time for 
the cry babies to go home!



MTC-00028718

From: Chris Carman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:06pm
Subject: reasons against the settlement
    I know I might be sending this a bit late, but I just found out 
about the open comment period and I'd like to say a couple things 
from an educator's point of view.
    I teach two computer classes--;one in web site design and 
programming, the other in computer & network support (aimed at 
CompTIA's A+ and Network+ tests). Our high school uses Windows PC's 
almost exclusively because of a directive from our school board that 
has more or less banned Macs due to their lack of presence in most 
businesses. I primarily use Macs at home, but I also have 3 PC's and 
am very comfortable with the Windows and Linux operating systems 
(I'm A+, Network+ and Linux+ certified).
    The settlement is bad for consumers, educators, students and the 
country as a whole for two major reasons.
    The first reason is that educators and students would have very 
little say in what products are chosen to be placed in their 
classrooms. Deep discounts from Microsoft and used PC heardware not 
only limits choices, but also increases tech support costs for the 
school. I did an observation at an inner-city high school in 
Cincinnati when I was in college, and five brand-new PC's sat in a 
corner because kids had stolen the balls from inside the mice and 
they were rendered useless. Of course, a $2 mouse ball would have 
fixed this, but with very little tech support in that district, the 
technology is wasted. If you want to do anything with schools, give 
them some money for equipment but give a lot more money for tech 
support training and increased salaries for tech coordinators to 
attract more qualified individuals.
    The second, and most important reason, is that the settlement 
does absolutely nothing to curb Microsoft's future domineering 
behavior. In fact, they come out looking like the good guys by 
donating to impoverished schools while increasing their installed 
user base! This sort of thing cannot be allowed to happen.
    The Windows APIs that allow programs to run inside the Windows 
Operating System should be opened up for everyone to download, use, 
interpret, and include in another OS. For example, if Mac OS X could 
run Windows programs natively, it would be a dramatic improvement 
for the computer industry as a whole because it would provide some 
serious competition for Microsoft. If you look back to the beginning 
of the computer industry, IBM was very slow to improve its original 
8086 and 80286 computers until competition (in the form of Compaq 
clones) came along. The same thing happened with Intel, which rested 
on its laurels until AMD released a chip (the Athlon) that was 
faster and cheaper than their Pentium 3.
    Competition is good for the industry. Please don't allow 
Microsoft to get away with this sort of bribery.
    Chris Carman
    Hamilton, Ohio



MTC-00028719

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    On belief of the Tech World further delays of the D. of J. in 
the decision re: MICROSOFT are simply causing greater expenditures 
of the tax payers money. Furthermore the remedy that was proposed by 
Microsoft was ideal because it would make available for the most 
under-priveledged children a technology that now is almost uniform 
in our country. Further delays will simply compound the problem in 
teaching.



MTC-00028720

From: 
[email protected]@inetg
w
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a user of the Microsoft Operating System and bundled software 
I have appreciated the ease of having it all in one package. I 
believe that most individual consumers would agree. The government 
broke up Ma Bell and now there are many larger businesses. All it 
did was to make prices rise. To those of us who are retired and hold 
stock in these companies such as Microsoft the ongoing dispute over 
who is right has only served to hurt the stockholders.
    Gordon Fox



MTC-00028721

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I use Microsoft products and they are pretty average. I believe 
they would be better if there was improved and fair competition in 
the market place. I strongly believe this site is a pawn in 
Microsofts plans to monopolize information technology. To improve 
all of out futures rethink your policies and realize that what 
Microsoft is doing is wrong.



MTC-00028722

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please bring an end to the Microsft suit. The economy has 
suffered long enough.
    Wes Vernon



MTC-00028723

From: 
[email protected]@i
netgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement terms are fair to all concerned and should be 
implemented without delay. Carl Bearden
    State Representative District 16



MTC-00028724

From: 
Everett--;[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:57pm

[[Page 28418]]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft creates software they do it better than anybody else. 
If there is a better operating system possible the developers can 
become the next Microsoft. It is time to stop punishing success in 
this country. Microsoft should be praised not hounded. Just leave 
them alone. The settlement should just say: Microsoft did it better. 
They did nothing wrong. All charges dropped!



MTC-00028725

From: Ken Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:05pm
Subject: Tunney Act Comments
    Just to make sure you received our fax, we are sending it one 
more time. If there are any problems with the submission you can 
call me 703-;608-;4222.
    Ken Brown



MTC-00028726

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D. Street, NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
RE: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Please find attached the Tunney Act comments of the Computing 
Technology Industry Association (CompTIA) relating to Microsoft 
settlement.
    The attached file is formated in Word Perfect 9. Please let me 
know if you have any difficulties downloading and/or formatting this 
file and I will be happy to provide it to you in a different format.
    Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments. I would 
appreciate your acknowledgment of receipt of these comments. Thank 
you.
    Lars H. Liebeler
    Thaler Liebeler LLP
    1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Suite 200
    Washington, DC 20006
    Direct: (202) 828-;9867
    Main: (202) 466-;4110
    Fax: (202) 466-;2693
    4350 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 440
    Arlington, VA 22203-;1624
    Tel (703) 812-;1333
    Fax (703) 812-;1337
    [email protected]
    QQQ
    CompTIA
    Comments of the Computing Technology Industry Association on the 
Revised Proposed Final Judgment in United States v. Microsoft
    Submitted to the United States Department of Justice pursuant to 
the Tunney Act, 15 U.S.C. u 16
    January 28, 2002
    I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
    CompTIA supports the Revised Proposed Final Judgment (RPFJ) 
entered into between the United States Department of Justice, nine 
states, and Microsoft on November 6, 2001. The RPFJ represents a 
reasonable compromise of the parties' respective positions in this 
case. The benchmark under which the settlement must be judged is 
whether it is consistent with the United States Court of Appeals 
June 28, 2001 opinion. The Court of Appeals found that Microsoft 
took actions to unlawfully maintain its monopoly in the operating 
system market, but also ruled that Microsoft had not attempted to 
unlawfully monopolize the Internet browser market nor did it 
unlawfully tie its Internet Explorer to the Windows operating 
system. The RPFJ represents a reasonable balance of the Court of 
Appeals split decision by imposing obligations upon Microsoft in the 
areas where it was found liable, and avoiding obligations in areas 
where Microsoft's conduct was not found to be unlawful. As such, the 
RPFJ is narrowly tailored to fit the violations and will likely 
avoid collateral damages to the marketplace. After the November 6, 
2001 Proposed Final Judgment was announced many of Microsoft's 
competitors complained that the settlement was too lenient. The 
antitrust laws, however, make clear that the settlement 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 anti-competitive conduct in the future; 
anything more would inappropriately imperil the technology 
marketplace and cause harm to consumers.
    The terms of the RPFJ insure that the technology sector will 
continue to expand and innovate. The settlement places strong and 
appropriate checks on Microsoft in areas where such checks are 
needed, but is designed in such a way that Microsoft will be able to 
compete fairly and aggressively in all markets. CompTIA urges the 
United States District Court to approve the settlement and reject 
the non-settling states more extensive remedy proposal as that would 
erode intellectual property protection, harm competition, and stall 
growth in the industry.
    The only significant reservation regarding the RPFJ that CompTIA 
holds is that the settlement obligates Microsoft to disclose an 
abundance of intellectual property to the Plaintiffs and the 
Technical Committee. While this technical information is to be used 
for the purpose of achieving the interoperability goals specifically 
identified in the RPFJ, CompTIA is concerned that the precedent 
established by these disclosure provisions will be harmful to the 
technology sector in the long run. Innovation and growth in the IT 
industry are fostered by strong protection of intellectual property 
rights. If every antitrust violation is remedied by a wholesale 
forfeiture of valuable proprietary information by the defendant, 
intellectual property rights will suffer a significant blow. And, 
justifying the forced disclosure of a company's valuable technical 
information on the ground that it will be used for interoperability 
purposes only is not a sufficient protection. Because there is no 
bright line as to what constitutes interoperability information and 
what does not, the chance of valuable intellectual property being 
compromised is high.
    CompTIA's reservation notwithstanding, we believe the settlement 
will benefit the industry as a whole and we respectfully urge the 
District Court to approve the RPFJ.
    II.COMPTIA'S INTEREST IN THIS MATTER
    The Computing Technology Industry Association (CompTIA) 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. 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
    CompTIA 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. CompTIA co-authored 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 discussed the negative industry-wide 
ramifications of the District Court's liability findings were they 
all permitted to stand. The basis for CompTIA's participation as 
amicus and submission of these Comments is its interest in the 
overall health and prosperity of the technology sector.
    III. THE CONSENT JUDGMENT IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND SHOULD 
BE APPROVED BY THE COURT
    A. Standards Under Which the RPFJ Should Be Judged
    Under the Tunney Act, 15 U.S.C. u 16, the consent judgment 
should be approved if it is in the ``public interest.'' The public 
interest analysis must be measured by the objectives of the 
antitrust laws; public interest concerns that are not within the 
purview of the antitrust laws are irrelevant. U.S. v. AT&T, 552 
F. Supp 131 (D.DC 1982), affirmed, 103 S.Ct. 1240 (1983).

[[Page 28419]]

    Nor is their a requirement that the settlement be, in the eyes 
of the District Court, ``the best possible settlement that could 
have been obtained;'' the settlement must simply be within the 
reaches of the public interest. U.S. v. Agri-Mark, Inc., 512 F. Supp 
737 (D. Vt. 1981). In short the District Court should not reject the 
consent judgment merely because [s]he believe[s] other remedies 
[are] preferable. United States v. Microsoft, 56 F.3d 1448, 1460 (DC 
Cir. 1995).
    The language of the Tunney Act sets forth specific areas of 
inquiry relating to the public interest:
    For the purpose of such determination, the court may 
consider--;(1) the competitive impact of such judgment, 
including termination of alleged violations, provisions for 
enforcement and modification, duration or relief sought, anticipated 
effects of alternative remedies actually considered, and any other 
considerations bearing upon the adequacy of such judgment; (2) the 
impact of entry of such judgment upon the public generally and 
individuals alleging specific injury from the violations set forth 
in the complaint including consideration of the public benefit, if 
any, to be derived from a determination of the issues at trial.
    15 U.S.C. u 16(e). Focusing on selected areas identified within 
the Tunney Act, CompTIA sets forth its analysis of the RPFJ below.
    B. The Competitive Impact of Such Judgment
    1. Termination of Violations
    The RPFJ closely tracks the liability findings from the Court of 
Appeals opinion. First, the settlement prohibits Microsoft from 
retaliating against any OEM (original equipment manufacturer) 
because of an 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 the Windows desktop.
    The anti-retaliation provisions of the RPFJ even go so far as to 
prohibit Microsoft from altering its license with an OEM even if the 
OEM offers users the option of launching other Operating Systems 
from the Basic Input/Output System or a non-Microsoft boot-loader or 
similar program that launches prior to the start of the Windows 
Operating System Product.
    RPFJ at u III.C.4 (emphasis added). Thus, an OEM has the full 
ability to make decisions based on price, features and performance 
with respect to whether an alternative operating system will be 
loaded on its computers; and that operating system product may 
appear to the user before Windows does. This flexibility will insure 
that operating systems that compete with Windows will have a full 
opportunity to reach the consumer. Once there, the decision about 
whether they succeed or fail is in the hands of consumers. These 
anti-retaliation provisions deal head on with the bulk 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 the top twenty 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 all software markets with 
other software 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 any 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, and are 
not unfairly shut out of those markets as a result of Microsoft's 
operating system monopoly. Consumers and OEM's have far greater 
freedom to install 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. At 
the same time the RPFJ does not prevent Microsoft from integrating 
new technology into the Windows operating system and does not 
prohibit Microsoft from competing in any market that it chooses to 
enter. Such restrictions would have harmed consumers and been 
antithetical to the goals of the antitrust laws.
    Because the RPFJ adheres closely and effectively addresses the 
liability findings of the Court of Appeals, it is a reasonable 
settlement and therefore in the public interest. Finally, the Court 
of Appeals directed the District Court to consider whether there is 
a causal connection between Microsoft's anticompetitive conduct and 
its dominant position in the OS market. United States v. Microsoft, 
253 F.3d 34, 106 (DC Cir.), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 350 (2001). And 
while this direction was made in the context of whether structural 
relief is appropriate, it is logical to conclude that the foundation 
of that inquiry remains highly relevant even though structural 
relief is no longer at issue in this case. In the absence of 
evidence that the marketplace would have looked any differently 
absent Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior, the RPFJ provisions 
that enjoin the conduct found unlawful by the Court of Appeals are 
appropriate and in the public interest. Any remedy that extends 
beyond the monopoly maintenance findings by the Court of Appeals 
would not be in the public interest absent a finding of causal 
connection showing actual harm in the marketplace, and clear 
evidence of how the remedy would obviate the harm, while avoiding 
collateral damage to the marketplace.
    2. Commingling of Software Code
    Bundling can also capitalize on certain economies of scope. A 
possible example is the ``shared'' library\1\ files 
that perform OS and browser functions with the very same lines of 
code and thus may save drive space from the clutter of redundant 
routines and memory when consumers use both the OS and browser 
simultaneously.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\Id. at 87.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some may criticize the settlement because the RPFJ does not 
address the issue of Microsoft's commingling of operating system 
code and Internet Explorer code which was found to be unlawful. See 
United States v. Microsoft, 253 F.3d 34, 66 (DC Cir. 2001). The 
Court of Appeals concluded that Microsoft's commingling of code 
deters OEMs [original equipment manufacturers] from pre-installing 
rival browsers, 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. 
Id.
    While Microsoft vigorously contested this finding of fact, and 
the Court of Appeals elsewhere acknowledged potential efficiencies 
from commingling of code, the Court denied1 Microsoft's petition for 
rehearing on this issue. In denying Microsoft's petition, however, 
the Court of Appeals expressly noted that [n]othing in the Court's 
opinion is intended to preclude the District Court's consideration 
of remedy issues. Order, August 2, 2001. Thus, the Court of Appeals 
signaled that its finding that Microsoft unlawfully commingled code 
does not necessarily mandate a remedial order requiring Microsoft to 
separate the code. Given the variety of other provisions in the RPFJ 
that encourage OEMs to place non-Microsoft middleware on the 
desktop, the consent judgment does not fail for the fact that it 
does not require Microsoft to separate the code. In the overall 
totality of circumstances, it is reasonable to conclude that the 
public interest would be better served by avoiding an order that 
would require Microsoft to engage in a fundamental redesign of its 
operating system. The object of such a remedy is effectively 
addressed through other provisions that do not harm consumers.
    3. There are no Loopholes in the RPFJ
    Some critics of the settlement have opined that the RPFJ 
contains loopholes in the language that requires Microsoft to 
disclose APIs (application programming interfaces) to software 
developers. See Washington Post, Wording of Microsoft Deal Too 
Loose, Analyses Say, January 18, 2002, E01. The settlement requires 
Microsoft to make such disclosures with respect to its browser, 
Internet Explorer, and other software such as Windows Media Player 
so that software developers may create competing software that 
interoperates with the Windows operating system. The allegation that 
the

[[Page 28420]]

settlement has loopholes in this regard, however, is based on a 
faulty interpretation of the plain language of the settlement 
agreement. Section III.D of the RPFJ requires Microsoft to make 
available the APIs and related Documentation that are used by 
Microsoft Middleware to interoperate with a Windows Operating System 
Product. The term Microsoft Middleware is defined as software code 
that is contained within the operating system, but for which updates 
are distributed separately. The definition also requires, inter 
alia, that the software code be trademarked. The two programs cited 
by critics of the settlement as possibly excluded from disclosure 
requirements, Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player, are, 
however, clearly within the definition. Both are included within the 
Windows operating system as an initial matter and updates to both 
are distributed
    A comprehensive list of downloadable updates to software that is 
contained within the Microsoft operating system is located at the 
following url: Updates to Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player 
are distributed on this site.
    Publically available trademark information indicates that 
Internet Explorer is trademarked under serial Nos. 75663324 and 
75340051 (assigned from Synet Inc.) and Windows Media, including 
descriptions of Windows Media Player are trademarked under serial 
Nos. 75663200, 75517785, and 75517786. separately. Moreover, both 
the logos and the words covering Internet Explorer and Windows2 
Media Player are trademarked.3
    A natural reading of the RPFJ demonstrates that there are no 
loopholes that would frustrate the overall intent of the document. 
The definitions are constructed in such a way to give meaning to 
certain terms, including middleware, that otherwise would be 
susceptible to a wide variance of interpretation. While some who are 
critical of the settlement may prefer broader definitions of certain 
terms, the danger in over-expansive definitions is that they exclude 
nothing and thus become unworkably vague.
    4. Provisions for Enforcement and Modification CompTIA has 
carefully analyzed the enforcement provisions of the RPFJ and 
concludes that the enforcement provisions are stringent, thorough, 
comprehensive, and are carefully designed to insure that Microsoft 
comply with the substantive terms of the settlement agreement.
    In addition, the terms are creative in that they include 
provisions that are likely to speed the resolution of consumer and 
competitor disputes, rather than result in additional lengthy 
litigation over the terms of the settlement. In sum, CompTIA finds 
little support for the characterization of the enforcement 
provisions as weak, and instead believes that the enforcement 
mechanisms are strong, effective, and will likely provide quick and 
effective resolution of any disputes under the agreement.
    Plaintiff's Powers to Enforce: The RPFJ specifically provides 
that the United States or any of the individual states involved in 
the case have responsibility for enforcing the Final Judgment. To 
facilitate this enforcement, the Plaintiffs have the right to:
    ! inspect all books, records, ledgers, or any document within 
the control of Microsoft;
    ! inspect all source code for any Microsoft program;
    ! interview any Microsoft employee, and record such interview;
    ! order Microsoft to prepare any report under oath regarding any 
matter in the Final Judgment.
    These access provisions give the Plaintiffs essentially 
unfettered ability to obtain any piece of information that they seek 
with respect to Microsoft's compliance with the Final Judgment. 
There is no loophole or exception that would prevent the Plaintiffs 
from acquiring information relating to Microsoft's compliance with 
the settlement. Further, any information obtained by the Plaintiff's 
may be presented directly to the Court in order to secure 
Microsoft's compliance.
    The Technical Committee: In addition to the wide latitude given 
to the Plaintiffs to inspect Microsoft documents, code, and 
personnel, the settlement agreement also establishes an independent 
three person Technical Committee (TC). This TC will be made up of 
experts in software design and programming and shall establish 
permanent offices at Microsoft's Redmond campus. The expense of the 
TC shall be paid by Microsoft and the TC shall have the power to 
hire any consultants necessary to assist them in their duties.
    The TC's sole function is to monitor Microsoft's compliance with 
its obligations under the Final Judgment. Thus, the TC has complete 
access to all Microsoft documents, computer programs, personnel, 
equipment, and physical facilities. The TC members may direct 
Microsoft to prepare reports of any information and in any format 
the TC desires.
    Most significantly, the TC will have complete access to the 
confidential source code of Microsoft's programs. The TC may study 
the code, interrogate the code, and interact with the code in order 
to insure that Microsoft is complying fully with the Final Judgment. 
The TC may interview any Microsoft employee regarding the source 
code and its operation. Again, there is no loophole or exclusion 
that would prevent the TC from obtaining any piece of information in 
any way related to Microsoft's compliance with the agreement.
    And, any information obtained by the TC may be shared with the 
Plaintiffs and the Court. Indeed, the TC has an obligation to report 
its activities to the Plaintiff at regular six- month intervals. If, 
however, the TC has reason to believe that a violation of the 
agreement has occurred, it is obligated to report that fact 
immediately to the Plaintiffs and provide a written summary of the 
nature of the violation. The Plaintiffs may then immediately 
initiate a contempt proceeding against Microsoft in the U.S. 
District Court as that Court has ongoing jurisdiction to enforce the 
terms of the Final Judgment.
    Microsoft's Internal Compliance Officer: Another important 
aspect of the RPFJ is a provision requiring Microsoft to appoint an 
internal compliance officer. This person has the responsibility to 
administer the company's compliance with the settlement agreement. 
The officer must circulate a copy of the Final Judgment to all 
officers and directors of the company and brief those people on the 
meaning of the Final Judgment and the requirements of the U.S. 
antitrust laws. The compliance officer is responsible for securing 
the written certification from each and every officer and director 
in the company that they understand the terms of the Final Judgment, 
agree to comply with its terms, and that they understand that 
failure to comply may result in a finding of contempt of court.
    Dispute Resolution: Any person may submit complaints concerning 
Microsoft's compliance with the Final Judgment to either the Justice 
Department, the States, the Technical Committee, or the Compliance 
Officer. Upon receipt of a complaint from any person the Plaintiffs 
may initiate an enforcement proceeding with the Court and seek to 
hold Microsoft in criminal or civil contempt. The Court has wide 
latitude to interpret the agreement, order compliance with the 
agreement, and/or impose fines or other sanctions upon the company.
    Notwithstanding the Plaintiffs' ability to immediately seek 
Court intervention to resolve compliance issues, other dispute 
resolution mechanisms are available under the agreement. These less 
formal procedures allow complainants to quickly resolve compliance 
issues with the assistance of the independent Technical Committees's 
extensive knowledge of the Company's activities. Any person may 
submit a compliance issue to the Technical Committee for 
investigation. The TC shall investigate complaints, bring them to 
the attention of the Microsoft Compliance Officer and advise 
Microsoft of its conclusions and proposal for cure. The identity of 
any complainant may be kept from Microsoft to insure that no 
retaliation could possibly occur.
    The only limitation placed on the TC's work is that its findings 
or recommendations in a informal dispute proceeding may not be 
admitted as evidence in Court, nor may the TC members be called to 
testify. This restriction does not interfere with the TC's 
responsibility to inform the Plaintiffs of any violation, explain 
the details of that violation, and provide supporting evidence to 
the Plaintiffs. Similarly, the restriction does not impede the 
Plaintiffs' ability to obtain and present all information obtained 
from Microsoft to the Court in support of the alleged violation. 
Instead, it permits the TC to actively and aggressively use every 
method possible to quickly negotiate the resolution of disputes 
between complainants and Microsoft without having the work-product 
of that negotiation process made public. Protecting the TC members 
from having to testify is consistent with the rules of every 
mediation session undertaken within the U.S. legal system. It 
encourages the parties to be fully candid and forthcoming before the 
TC in attempting to resolve disputes under the settlement agreement.
    In sum, the extensive power and access that the TC has under the 
settlement agreement insures that the informal complaint procedure 
will not be a dead letter. Because the TC has full access to every 
book, record, person, and program at Microsoft, and has the ability 
to order

[[Page 28421]]

Microsoft to prepare any report it wishes, the TC can make life very 
difficult for Microsoft. Indeed, Microsoft has great incentive to 
satisfy the TC and avoid compliance issues altogether. The TC will 
provide an effective procedure for quick resolution of complaints 
against Microsoft typically far quicker than if a contempt 
proceeding were initiated.
    The enforcement provisions of the RPFJ grant extremely broad 
powers of access to both the Plaintiffs and to the independent 
Technical Committee. Both entities have the power to present the 
information they obtain from Microsoft to the Court to insure 
Microsoft's compliance with the settlement agreement. The Court has 
wide discretion in punishing Microsoft for violations of the Final 
Judgment and the RPFJ specifically provides that the terms of the 
agreement may be extended for an additional two years if Microsoft 
has engaged in a pattern of willful violation. The RPFJ also 
includes a wide array of formal and informal dispute resolution 
mechanisms that give a complainant maximum ability to resolve 
disputes quickly and fairly. Charles James, head of the DOJ's 
Antitrust Division, testified that [t]he proposed decree contains 
some of the most stringent enforcement provisions ever contained in 
any modern consent decree. CompTIA's review of the enforcement 
procedures supports Mr. James' conclusions. The establishment of an 
exceptionally powerful Technical Committee as a permanent fixture on 
Microsoft's campus is unprecedented. The Technical Committee's 
investigatory duties and duties to report directly to the Plaintiffs 
insures that the enforcement provisions have the power necessary to 
force Microsoft to comply with the substantive terms of the Revised 
Proposed Final Judgment.
    C. Anticipated Effects of Alternative Remedies Actually 
Considered
    While the November 6, 2001 Revised 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 relating to servers), 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 necessarily have the 
same functionality. 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, 2001 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 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 source code, 
without compensation to Microsoft.
    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.
    IV. CONCLUSION
    The RPFJ will never be and cannot be all things to all people. 
But, in the end, it is a reasonable result given the respective 
positions of the both sides in this litigation. In assessing the 
effectiveness of the current settlement, the Court should recognize 
that the marketplace is far different than it was at the time the 
case was originally brought in May 1998. The Court of Appeals spoke 
to this very issue:
    [J]ust 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, both in crafting injunctive 
remedies in the first instance and reviewing those remedies in the 
second. Conduct remedies may be unavailing in such cases, because 
innovation to a large degree has already rendered the 
anticompetitive conduct obsolete (although by no means harmless). 
United States v. Microsoft, 253 F.3d 34, 49 (DC Cir. 2001).
    CompTIA does not interpret the Court of Appeals' language to 
support the proposition that minimal or no remedies should be 
imposed upon Microsoft because advancing technology has made the 
browser wars or other issues in the 1998 lawsuit irrelevant at this 
point in time. However, it appears that those who now seek to impose 
more far-reaching remedies against Microsoft are excessively focused 
on the marketplace as it was in 1998, ignoring its state in 2002. 
The advances in server technology, wireless and handheld devices, 
and web based applications all diminish the overall competitive 
significance of the Windows desktop. Thus, for example, the goal of 
attempting to inject more competition into the browser market at 
this time has little competitive significance to the overall 
technology marketplace.
    The goal of the settlement in this case should not be to 
penalize Microsoft for past behavior, nor should it be to benefit 
Microsoft's competitors by forcing Microsoft to license its source 
code against its will. The settlement should insure that Microsoft 
does not engage in the actions found unlawful by the Court of 
Appeals. This consent judgment does just that and therefore it 
should be approved.

[[Page 28422]]

    Respectfully Submitted,
    Lars H. Liebeler, Esq.
    Thaler Liebeler LLP
    1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Suite 200
    Washington, DC 20006
    CompTIA Antitrust Counsel
    (202) 828-;9867



MTC-00028727

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:07pm
Subject: Microsoft
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I would like to express my opinion on the Microsoft settlement:
    1- There should never have been a need. If microsoft competetors 
can't handle the competition, then its time for them to get out of 
the business (just as anyone else in business would).
    2- Since there seems to be a need for a settlement, I think 
microsoft has offered one that is more than adequate.
    3- Get the government out of the way of progress.
    Thanks for this opportunity.
    R.E. Lee



MTC-00028728

From: 
[email protected]@i
netgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the facts, as well as the opinions, are in and it is 
time for the Department of Justice to act firmly against Microsoft. 
It has long been know that Microsoft has used it position to squelch 
competition and stifle creativity. Microsoft has used its position 
to deliver products that were full of flaws and demand premium 
prices. This, in light of their predatory practices, should not be 
tolerated.
    Please take this opportunity to open up this monopoly to other 
players and get the economy back on track.
    Verizon Communications
    Bruce T. Granger, M.I.S.
    Enterprise Solutions Group
    Manager--;Network Integration
    Senior Network Integration Engineer--;CCNA, CCNP
    Work--;972.718.3174
    Fax--;972.718.3336
    Mobile--;214.789.4630



MTC-00028729

From: Robert McConnell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In response to the government's request for comments on the 
proposed Microsoft Settlement:
    As a computer professional with over three decades of experience 
writing software for a variety of operating systems including 
Windows, and as one-time fan of Microsoft, I would like to make two 
points. The first is to suggest one route which in the absence of a 
breakup I expect Microsoft to continue to exploit to maintain it's 
monopoly. The second point is to call attention to a related danger 
from Microsoft's monopoly which I believe is accelerating the flight 
of manufacturing from the US to foreign countries.
    First the monopoly preservation strategy:
    Most competent computer programmers can, if they wish, write and 
document functioning code which is virtually incomprehensible to any 
other competent programmer (including the author him/herself). 
Moreover said author can almost certainly (disingenuously but 
successfully) argue in a court comprised of non-experts that the 
code is straightforward, well-documented and easy to understand.
    What does this have to do with Microsoft maintaining and 
extending their monopoly? Everything. Whether hardware or software, 
it is in the interests of the creator of any product to facilitate 
use by the consumer while hiding as much of the internal workings as 
possible to discourage competition. Microsoft's strategy has been to 
continuously expand the boundaries of it's ``operating 
system'' (more properly now an operating environment) 
enveloping or attempting to envelope entire classes of applications, 
office, networking, on-line shopping, manufacturing etc... within 
the boundaries of the ``operating system''. This can be 
done explicitly as in the case of Internet Explorer, or implicitly 
by simply making it difficult and or prohibitively expensive for 
outsiders to access, or even know about, operating system or 
hardware features which may be important for fields Microsoft 
dominates, or wishes to dominate. The ``browser wars'' 
were about exposing the inner workings of Microsoft's operating 
system so others might use them.
    Because of the ease of writing and defending impenetrable code 
Microsoft already has an almost unlimited ability to restrict access 
to the core of the operating system and to the hardware beyond, 
whether or not a court orders it to provide access. Microsoft sells 
just enough tools to access selected parts its operating environment 
to be able to provide lip-service to openness. Generally speaking 
the products are scaled in such a way that only those who have made 
a large commitment, financial or ``sweat equity'' which 
will tend to lock in their allegiance to Microsoft are allowed 
access to the more powerful tools.
    Because of the high barrier created by the impenetrability of 
the Microsoft code, it is hard to imagine any remedy short of a 
breakup will be able to curtail Microsoft's illegal monopolistic 
practices.
    The second comment, related to manufacturing flight, is 
contained in a letter I sent to the Attorney General general of 
Massachusetts several months ago. The text follows:
    Dear Mr. Attorney General,
    I must congratulate you and your staff on the stand you have 
taken against the proposed Microsoft settlement.
    I am a software developer who has long been appalled by the 
relentless manner in which the American public interest continues to 
be steamrolled by the Microsoft juggernaut. Therefore I was shocked 
by the decision by the Justice Department to take the breakup option 
off the table. It is my opinion that this option offered the only 
chance to restore competition to the software marketplace. Needless 
to say, I was further dismayed by the terms of the proposed 
settlement.
    As you are obviously well aware, under the guise of 
``innovation'' Microsoft has succeeded in stifling true 
innovation in many ways. Much of the damage done by Microsoft is not 
as a result of overt actions towards the ``victim'' 
whether an individual or a company. Rather it is in creating an 
environment in which the fate of others who have tried to innovate 
in the face of Microsoft serves as a deterrent to further 
innovation. Of course this type of deterrence by example does not 
carry the connotation of physical danger as might be expected from 
similar threats by organized crime or terrorists.
    Nevertheless it is quite effective. This is an environment in 
which:
    1. Intelligent software developers know that they have little 
chance of being successful unless they join the Microsoft camp. Once 
in that camp more of a developer's time will be likely spent keeping 
up with Microsoft's complexity-increasing-whims than improving their 
product.
    2. Intelligent funding institutions know from history that there 
is no point in developing a product in a market in which Microsoft 
is known or believed to have interest. The best one can hope for in 
the case of a very successful product is the opportunity to sell the 
product to Microsoft at a price determined only by the latter.
    3. The required ``operating system'' (now more 
properly an operating environment) is so complex as to create a huge 
barrier between the creative idea of a researcher, developer, or 
engineer and its implementation into a useful product.
    I'm reminded of a university researcher's website I saw several 
years ago. The researcher noted that he was using older, and by then 
outdated, analysis software for his research. Although he had 
written the original software himself, he believed that the new 
requirement of interfacing with Windows had introduced such 
complexities that he could not afford either the time to update the 
software himself, or the money to to hire a Windows specialist to 
update it for him. Whether or not the researcher's assumption was 
actually true, Microsoft literature and promotions (the so-called 
FUD factor) would certainly lead him to this conclusion. Hence his 
further research in this field was stymied.
    4. Similarly the Microsoft ``one size fits all'' 
operating system and tools, interposed between America's 
manufacturing engineers and the computer, hamper their creative 
efforts. Modern Windows software effectively prevents these 
engineers from writing high speed one-of-a-kind applications 
necessary for the most efficient manufacturing. Ten years ago the 
same engineer would have had no trouble writing this type of 
software.
    As a Senior Member and member of the Peer Review Committee of 
the Machine Vision Association of the Society of Manufacturing 
Engineers I became personally concerned about this issue several 
years ago. I was particularly worried that is resulting in 
substantial advantages for manufacturing facilities in foreign 
countries and earlier this year prepared the attached document.

[[Page 28423]]

    I'm not sure any of this will be of any help in the successful 
resolution of the Microsoft situation, However I thought it might be 
helpful in explaining why at least one of us is behind you.
    Again, congratulations and good luck on your stand!
    Sincerely,
    Robert McConnell
    CC:Attorney General Tom Reilly



MTC-00028730

From: Jim D. Kirby
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 5:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    They say hindsight is 20-;20. Sometimes we get the benefit 
of hindsight prior to the fact. In this case, the emerging Enron 
scandal shows us exactly what the Bush administration was attempting 
in their settlement with Microsoft: corporate capitulation.
    The proposed settlement between Microsoft and the Federal 
government reeks of nepotism, favoritism and backroom shenanigans. 
Enron has shown us how our executive branch operates; please do not 
let similar actions favoring Microsoft provide yet more fodder for 
our growing recession.
    Jim Kirby
    Senior Network Engineer/Architect
    Wells'' Dairy, Inc.
    Main: 712-;546-;4000 Direct: 712-;548-;2919 
Fax:
    712-;548-;3106
    mailto:[email protected] http://
bluebunny.com



MTC-00028731

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am dismayed by the DOJ action against Microsoft. It makes me 
ashamed to be an American. I urge the court to dismiss the suit 
entirely, or, failing that, to impose the mildest sanctions 
possible.
    I use Microsoft's software on a regular basis--;it's 
certainly improved my life. While I prefer using Macintosh computers 
to PCs running Windows, I have nothing but admiration for 
Microsoft's accomplishments. Claiming there are no alternatives to 
Microsoft products is laughable. Not only are there a host of 
alternatives, but if Microsoft were ever to attempt to charge 
exorbitant rates for its wares I and a host of others would rush in 
to compete.
    To say that Microsoft has a monopoly for PC operating systems is 
meaningless. What makes an ``industry standard'' PC 
standard is precisely the fact that it runs Windows. Microsoft has a 
monopoly in the same sense that Tom Clancy has a monopoly on 
``The Hunt for Red October''. This monopoly is the right 
of a producer to his product--; it is guaranteed by Section 8 of 
the U.S. Constitution.
    Microsoft has never harmed me, nor do I ever expect it to. How 
could it? My transactions with Microsoft are voluntary. This court, 
however, can harm me and every American. By restricting Microsoft's 
freedom everyone's freedom is restricted. This would be too big a 
price even if there were a public interest to be served by such a 
restriction. In fact there is none. It is Microsoft who has been 
serving the public, as evidenced daily by those who voluntarily 
purchase Microsoft's products. Whether or not they realize it, even 
Microsoft's competitors benefit from Microsoft's presence, which 
spurs them to added effort and ever-higher levels of quality. Were 
it not for Microsoft many of them would not exist! Without Microsoft 
most computers might still be running CP/M--;that would be a sad 
state of affairs.
    Adam Wildavsky
    President
    Tameware, LLC
    33-;39 80th St. No. 32
    Jackson Heights, NY 11372
    [email protected] http://www.tameware.com



MTC-00028732

From: Chris Carman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:10pm
Subject: one more comment
    I wrote an earlier comment against the settlement, but I wanted 
to add one last thing--;Microsoft should not be allowed to 
engage in any ``exclusive contracts'' (ie, a computer that 
is shippsed booting Windows is only allowed to boot Windows and 
cannot boot or include another operating system like Linux or 
BeOS--;this is why Dell, IBM, etc. won't sell PC's that have 
both Windows and Linux ) for at least the next ten years. This would 
be roughly in line with how long Windows has been around. Just a 
thought. Thanks!
    Chris Carman
    Hamilton, Ohio



MTC-00028733

From: George Van Treeck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to comment on section III.J.1 and III.J.2 of the 
proposed settlement. I worked at company last year that asked for 
information on a network communication protocol so that we could 
make our product work their products. Microsoft didnt refuse, they 
repeatedly failed to respond to the requests in any way. And 
sections III.J.1 and III.J.2 are so ambiguous in interpretation that 
there they could use it as an excuse to provide information, 
effectively squashing small companies who cant afford the legal 
warfare to compel a disclosure.
    An example of how section III.J.1 and 2 could be used a smoke 
screen by Microsoft to deny access to communication protocols and 
APIs for security reasons: Virtually all security systems software 
is designed in such a way that even if you do know how the software 
works, it is virtually impossible to break it. For example, the 
software for the PGP encryption algorithm is public knowledge and 
used by a large number of people, because knowledge of how the 
encryption works does not help in breaking the code. In fact, public 
knowledge helps people identify potential problems early before the 
there is wide adoption. Microsoft can claim a large portion of their 
product falls under section III.J.1 and 2, when in fact, knowing the 
details does not lessen security in any measurable way. Small 
companies would not have the resources to contest this.
    As a software engineer, I found most of Microsofts arguments 
about the need to inextricably bind their browser to the operating 
system very odd.
    Fact #1: Microsofts Internet Explorer browser runs on Apples 
operating system and a UNIX version also existed. Further, their 
first versions of Microsoft IE ran without tight integration into 
its own operating system. So, the claim about it needing to be 
inextricably bound to the operating system to ``provide a 
better experience'' is without any merit.
    Fact #2: Every competent software engineer will tell you 
that reliable and maintainable software is designed in pieces with 
very clearly defined interfaces that encapsulate and hide internal 
details of each piece. This makes it possible to keep defects in one 
piece from breaking things inside other pieces. Further, this 
encapsulation with well-defined interfaces makes it easy to pull out 
one piece and replace it with a better piece in the future, without 
breaking all the other pieces (makes future enhancements easier). 
This is analogous to replacing the incandescent light bulb in your 
lamp with a more energy efficient light bulb both bulbs use the same 
screw-in interface to your lamp).
    Are we really to believe that all those top talent engineers at 
Microsoft are NOT using basic design principals of encapsulation and 
well-defined APIs, that would allow them to easily pull out a 
current version of their Internet Explorer and with a future 
enhanced version (and therefore also allow a third party browser to 
also use that same well defined interface to plug their browser in)?
    Microsoft cant have it both ways: They're a competent software 
company who can speak with authority in court (design code that 
encapsulates internals with well-defined APIs) or the browser is so 
inextricably tied that another browser can not easily replace it 
(and thus can't believe what they say because they're incompetent).
    I know Microsoft has some of the sharpest software engineers 
around. I know they write some pretty good software. So, this means 
their executive's excuses for Microsoft's behavior are not credible.
    So, what does this indicate about Microsoft executives attitude 
and how they are likely to interpret an ambiguous settlement 
agreement? Will appointing a review committee that is not highly 
technical in specialized areas of software (e.g., specialied 
security) interpret this agreement in the public interest?



MTC-00028734

From: Sean Ryan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Your Honor,
    I am writing to voice my displeasure with the Proposed Final 
Judgment in the Microsoft Anti-Trust Case. The PFJ has three major 
flaws.
    1. It does not terminate Microsoft's illegal monopoly

[[Page 28424]]

    2. The penalty for past illegal behavior is not a disincentive 
and will actually give Microsoft an advantage in another market 
segment.
    3. The Department of Justice must pledge to prevent any future 
anti-competitive activity by Microsoft by maintaining a close watch 
of the companies activities.
    Illegal monopolies hurt the consumer, inhibit innovation, and 
encourage future illegal activity if they are not handled in a 
manner far more aggressive than that in the Proposed Final Judgment. 
I urge you to reject the PFJ.
    Thank You,
    Sean Ryan
    (707) 438-;7326



MTC-00028735

From: Othniel Graichen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5'10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In the western system of capitalism, consumers do not usually 
buy directly from producers. In our economy, multiple levels of 
middlemen exist to satisfy the demand for finished goods. This 
results in healthy competition, reasonable profits and an increased 
tax base. The established Microsoft monopoly on technology (like 
AT&T's monopoly on communications before it) has not been used 
toward the public's good and the company's business practices 
illegally extend this monopoly by tying inferior products to its 
established ones slowing the rate of technology advancement. This 
substantially reduces the opportunities for competing technology 
producers and has resulted in decreased tax revenues which can be 
collected from the offending multinational corporation. Furthermore 
by refusing to support the Linux platform, Microsoft management 
reduces its value to shareholders. My explanation follows:
    Microsoft does not just have a monopoly on PC operating systems. 
In the minds of middle management in the Western world, a new 
technology is not ready for deployment until a Microsoft product 
includes it. The successful managers have witnessed where business 
needs existed for a given technology, early adopters (using non-
Microsoft tools) were burned by incompatibilities with key Microsoft 
software components or unavailability of updates to products such as 
Excel, Word, DOS, Windows, Internet Explorer and Media Player to 
name a few.
    After slaying Goliath, Microsoft now holds hostage an even 
larger customer base than IBM did before it changed it business 
practices to remedy an earlier DOJ suit. Microsoft has not 
cooperated with the will of the people as pursued by the USDOJ and 
attorneys general of the 19 states. Unlike IBM, Microsoft cannot see 
the error of its ways. Its no longer just about profits ? instead 
it's about the power to be above the law. The ``software 
tax'' that it collects on all PCs sold planet-wide by 
leveraging US political and military influence makes Microsoft (and 
by extension the US) a target of foreign nationalistic pride/
prejudice. Wars in the coming centuries will be fought over control 
of Information. Microsoft's way has not produced the technologically 
superior or secure operating system platform needed by the 
marketplace because they have not had to innovate as they hold a 
monopoly and successfully prevent competition into that space. The 
computer scientists that have built Linux allow for commercial 
proprietary software to run on this more reliable platform. They 
only want the operating system not the applications which run on it 
to be free/open and beyond subversion. They have produced a system 
which is more secure and reliable than Microsoft's operating 
systems. Businesses that have seen how often the Microsoft sands 
shift have chosen not build on the Microsoft choices of foundation.
    The free operating system Linux was given as an example to the 
court as a serious threat to Microsoft's monopoly, but that argument 
should be discounted as that Operating System is totally free ? 
meaning no license cost per machine. So it does not compete with 
Microsoft. There is no company called Linux. No one company controls 
the direction Linux will take. The reason Linux? open source API can 
compete with Microsoft's Monopoly OS is because the companies that 
use it are guaranteed of a truly level operating system playing 
field. Linux is to operating system technology what free markets are 
to economic systems. Requiring Microsoft to support the Linux 
platform as a tier 1 operating system for all their application 
software is not taking money out of Microsoft's hand and putting it 
in the hand of some other company. If Microsoft's management doesn't 
respond to the viability of Linux, Microsoft's shareholders will be 
hurt on the order of what happened to Enron. That is not in the 
interest of middle America. What is in America's best interests is 
not a powerful Microsoft, but a software platform where no company 
has control over hardware or processor, but one where all businesses 
(and governments) can compete based on innovation, quality and their 
ability to meet customer requirements. Microsoft needs to become a 
technology producer instead of controlling technology deployment. 
Microsoft unfairly changes the operating system platform whenever a 
competitor has found a niche which Microsoft wants to occupy. Only 
when Microsoft agrees to support the Linux Operating system with 
their application software will competition in the business and 
office technology sector flourish to the benefit of all.
    Microsoft is a grand marketing organization but they do not 
stimulate our economy to build (and profit from building) new 
technological advances. Business plans that would go head-to-head 
with Microsoft are rejected. Instead of hiring and training more 
computer scientists, software developers and programmers, our 
country has changed immigration laws to allow 500 thousand more H1-B 
Visas thereby increasing the unemployment of working class 
Americans. Furthermore, Microsoft is not pushing the envelope of 
technology. It recoups its investment on technology many fold more 
than necessary before developing new products. This is not good for 
consumers and has transformed
    Microsoft into more of a marketing company than a purveyor of 
technology. It specifically breaks the law regarding the tying of a 
new product to a monopoly product by combining bug fixes (a warranty 
service) into product upgrades (for a fee) and by not making them 
available separately but combining fixes with new code (and a new 
set of bugs). While the argument has been made regarding Microsoft's 
Internet Explorer browser being part of the Microsoft Operating 
System instead of application software, two facts belie that claim. 
One, Internet Explorer is available for the Macintosh, Solaris and 
HP-Unix--;platforms that are obviously not Microsoft operating 
systems. So tying Internet Explorer to the correct operation of the 
Windows Operating System was a deliberate attempt to sabotage 
competition in the browser space resulting in the demise and 
purchase of Netscape instead of more competition. Second, 
Microsoft's claim that Internet Explorer is free--;just like 
Netscape Communicator is bogus. IE is only free to Microsoft 
customers. Internet Explorer is specifically not available on Linux 
(proving that it is not free) and because the API (operating system 
interface) which it uses is purposely obfuscated. Netscape Navigator 
and Communicator are free and are available on Linux along with the 
next generation Mozilla open source browser.
    Artificially high operating system prices combined with fewer OS 
technological advances cause fewer computers to be sold by market 
forces due to customers learning to be disappointed in what their 
computers can do. More competition would increase the value of the 
computing infrastructure and motivate companies to invest in more 
computers. This was the expectation 20 years ago. All that money 
went to Microsoft. What do we have to show for all that investment? 
Some improvement but a lot of broken promises. Open Source Software 
delivers on that promise and the Linux operating system is the 
standards based vendor neutral mechanism to remedy the difficult 
situation the court finds itself needing to resolve.
    I look to the court to render a decision which will increase 
employment of software developers in this country, increase the 
diversity of IT sector businesses, and punish the company which 
brazenly ignored anti-trust law, threat, and actual suit. Do not 
forget how the courts were unmistakably lied to. Now that Microsoft 
has been found guilty of being a monopolist, do not take the teeth 
out of enforcement by accepting the weak Proposed Final Judgement. 
Microsoft has injured the Information Technology sector and with 
remedies you can drive a truck through and will continue to do so 
for the next 5 to 7 years. The DOJ position has changed since the 
beginning of this trial with Joel Klein. Despite all the pressure to 
join the US DOJ, many of the state attorneys general could not in 
good conscience join the Revised Proposed Final Judgement. Do your 
job to ensure that America begins the 21st century by accelerating 
the deployment of technology rather than allowing business as usual 
at Microsoft to continue.
    Nor is breaking up Microsoft the only solution! That is a 
simpleton's way to elicit the desired behavior, which won?t work 
because there will be uncontrollable collusion between the two 
subentities.

[[Page 28425]]

Releasing the source code for Internet Explorer would be in line 
with Microsoft's claim that Internet Explorer is free. Its? 
interconnection with Outlook (the Email client) is responsible for 
most of the virus vulnerabilities. The inevitable improvements in 
security once the source code is released would benefit the public. 
Getting Microsoft to drop the suit against Lindows.com ? a potential 
operating system competitor ? would also be proof that they will 
permit competition. The most important goal is to convince Microsoft 
that selling its Office Suite on Linux is good for Microsoft. The 
RPFJ does not accomplish that. That is one reason why all the 
state's attorneys general did not support it.
    Microsoft writes good application software, but they have made 
operating systems which are not secure from viruses. Actually Java 
was designed from the start to be a more secure middleware platform, 
yet Microsoft quickly pushed its own alternative technology which 
has since been successfully targeted by virus writers. Why? Not to 
support the public good, but to retain control of their market.
    There is no money in selling operating systems, yet the 
foundation of all applications is operating system support. Since 
the beginning, OSes have always been given away with the computer. 
The Microsoft licensing agreement must be changed to not require 
that Microsoft application software be used only with or on a 
Microsoft Operating System license. What Microsoft has done is that 
they have sold all the computer manufacturers on the idea of paying 
them to preload computers with their operating system. Thus the 
price of the operating system is inseparable from the hardware. 
Microsoft gets their ``tax'' whether you use their 
software or not. This lack of consumer choice in operating system 
middleware must end. As long as Microsoft products are only licensed 
for Microsoft operating systems, consumers will be tied to that 
platform and technology sector businesses will be unable to innovate 
and compete with Microsoft.
    Lastly, market (business) and government (military) forces are 
finally responding to the fact that only open source software 
systems are secure. Your judgement should promote this trend without 
being legislative. Microsoft should be prevented by decree from 
developing a version of their operating systems which are 
incompatible with VMware or preventing their application software 
from running under WINE in Linux. Such measures are simply 
exclusionary. Only at this point in history will you be able to 
extract such willingness to compete from an avowed monopolist. They 
need to be taught that limits exist on acceptable business 
practices.
    Othniel Graichen
    Senior Software Engineer
    107 Nobhill
    San Antonio, TX 78228



MTC-00028736

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5'' 12pm
Subject: Letter
437 Highland Boulevard
    Brigham City, UT 84302
    January 24, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am very much in favor of the right of consumers to choose the 
configuration of the system they work in. I am, therefore, in favor 
of the settlement reached between Microsoft and the Department of 
Justice. There is no doubt in my mind that Microsoft was behaving 
monopolistically, but the corporation produces good software, and I 
do not believe that so much fuss should have been made about actions 
that were not, in effect, harming the public.
    The settlement allows for a return of fair competition in the 
technology industry. Microsoft has, for example, agreed to reformat 
future versions of Windows so that computer makers as well as users 
will be free to reconfigure Windows using both Microsoft and non-
Microsoft software to suit their specific needs. The settlement also 
requires that Microsoft's actions be monitored by a three-person 
technical committee consisting of software engineers who will 
resolve disputes and make sure Microsoft complies with the 
settlement. I think Microsoft deserves a chance to prove its ability 
to adhere to the settlement. It will cost more in the long run to 
continue litigation against Microsoft. The technology industry, the 
economy, and the American people have all felt the repercussions of 
this case. It is time to settle. I urge you to support the agreement 
and move on.
    Sincerely,
    Barbara Findley



MTC-00028737

From:[email protected]@in
etgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:12pm
Subject: Copy of my letter
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I would like to express my opinion on the Microsoft settlement:
    1- There should never have been a need. If microsoft competetors 
can't handle the competition, then its time for them to get out of 
the business (just as anyone else in business would).
    2- Since there seems to be a need for a settlement, I think 
microsoft has offered one that is more than adequate.
    3- Get the government out of the way of progress.
    Thanks for this opportunity.
    R.E. Lee



MTC-00028738

From: Eddie Schwartz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Eddie Schwartz
    4625 Tara Drive
    Nashville, TN 37215
    Fax:
    January 22, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The Department of Justice and Microsoft have finally reached a 
settlement to the three-year antitrust dispute, and I am writing to 
champion that settlement and ask that it be approved as soon as 
possible. I am in favor of any agreement that will end litigation 
against Microsoft and that will help America.
    Microsoft has agreed not to enter into any contractual 
obligations with third-party companies that mandate that they 
strictly use or promote Microsoft products. They have also agreed 
not to retaliate against computer companies that make or promote 
software that competes with Windows.
    Believe it nor not, they will share source code and other data 
that is critical to the design and implementation of Windows. This 
allows the competition to make products that are compatible with 
Windows. This will improve the IT industry and the economy.
    I fully support this settlement, and hope it is approves with 
haste. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Eddie Schwartz



MTC-00028739

From: Bernard R Buchta
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    January 28, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As a six-year teacher of PCs and the Windows operating system, I 
would like to voice my strong support for settling the pending 
Microsoft case. My experience as a PC instructor and my 26-year's as 
a military logistics officer has taught me the great value of 
standardization. Standardization buys everyone a lot. And, after 
standardization is achieved, ``the payback is forever.'' 
Witness: When we go to war, we want our bullets to fit into our 
allies'' guns and rifles, and want theirs to fit into ours. We 
want to be able to share, substitute and interchange their artillery 
rounds, fuel, and rations, etc., with ours. It's called being 
``Interoperable.'' It's a great force-multiplier and keeps 
costs down.
    Standardization, by definition, creates efficiency. It also 
makes for convenience and ease of use. Now, today, we need 
standardization and efficiency more than ever. Therefore, the 
proposed solution seems like a fair compromise that will provide the 
most effective long-term results for consumers. As seen with the 
International Standards Organization, the uniformity of Windows(R) 
and its supporting products is an asset to all computer users. This 
includes business and industry, schools, home users, . . . just 
everyone!
    Technology is complicated enough for the average person, so the 
advantages Microsoft provides with the scope of their software 
presence is immeasurable in the form of America's almost seamless 
transition into the information age with young and old alike. Though 
I did not respect the government's case, the restrictions imposed 
with this deal

[[Page 28426]]

are far more favorable than the possibility of a corporate break up 
and chaos within the computer world. Based on the new, more even-
handed approach of Microsoft toward competitors, and those who do 
business with competitors, plus the implementation of an objective 
technical committee of experts to ensure compliance, it seem to me 
it would be in the best interest of all parties involved to proceed 
with this agreement. This will save the consumer a great deal of 
heartache. It will also permit continued interoperability in future 
systems and software programs.
    Thank you very much for your consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Bernard R. Buchta
    Bernard R Buchta, in Troy, MI
    LTC, OrdC, US Army (Retired)
    P.S.
    You're doing a great job in the War on Terror.
    Don't let them grind you down!



MTC-00028740

From: Daniel Sells
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:15pm
Subject: No winners, just more wasted money.
    How many new schools could we build with the money that is being 
wasted on this case? Better yet, how many people could be feed? 
What's more important, People or what kind OS/browser they use to 
access the internet?
    Stop Wasting MY Tax Money!!!!!
    This lawsuit is a huge waste of tax payer money. The federal 
government should use MY tax money to provide valued services to me 
and all Americans. WHAT DOES ANYONE STAND TO GAIN BY SUEING 
MICROSOFT? Know one is forced to buy the Windows operating system, 
browser or any other Microsoft product. Apple Macintosh has been 
around for years and is a very viable alternative to the Windows 
platform for all who chose such. Linux is growing in popularity as 
another choice. I don't understand why your DOJ is pursuing this. If 
other companies want to sue Microsoft, they have the courts to do 
so. Let AOL, IBM or whoever sue them WITHOUT USING MY TAX DOLLARS! 
The DOJ should step down and let the other companies battle this out 
as long as their willing to pay.
    D.M. Sells



MTC-00028741

From: Lynn Walker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5'09pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
967 Artman-Gibson Road Colville, WA 99114
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Thank you for your efforts to settle the Microsoft antitrust 
case. Concluding this litigation will be beneficial for the tech 
industry, as well as the economy.
    The settlement agreement adequately addresses concerns about any 
predatory business practices on Microsoft's part. Upon approval of 
the agreement, Microsoft will refrain from taking retaliatory action 
against those who sell, promote, or develop software that competes 
with Windows. Another step Microsoft is taking is making it easier 
for consumers to remove features of Windows so they may replace 
these features with Microsoft's competitor's software programs. In 
my view, Microsoft has made adequate concessions to resolve this 
case. No further action should be taken by the Department of Justice 
against Microsoft.
    Thank you for your consideration of my comments on this issue.
    Sincerely,
    Lynn Walker



MTC-00028742

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
203 Hazelton Court
Mullica Hill, NJ 08062-;9350
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    The Microsoft antitrust case settlement agreement should be 
approved as soon as possible. We will all be better off. This 
lawsuit demonstrates that Microsoft's competitors, like Sun, are 
merely envious of Microsoft's success. Their failure to develop 
products of the same caliber, as Windows does not mean Microsoft 
engaged in anticompetitive behavior.
    The terms of the settlement agreement are fair. There should be 
no hesitation in the settlement's approval. The agreement provides 
for such things as a technical oversight committee, which will 
monitor Microsoft's business, practices. Additionally, Microsoft has 
agreed to disclose to its competitors proprietary information, like 
interfaces that are internal to the Windows operating system. Given 
these types of concessions, no further action should be taken 
against Microsoft.
    Thank you for your intelligent attention.
    Sincere regards,
    Linda Maher



MTC-00028743

From: Tom Daly
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
United States Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    I have been following the Microsoft case for many months and I 
believe that the proposed resolution of the case is clearly not in 
the interest of the American consumer and not good for the economy.
    Microsoft will still be a monopoly for all intents and purposes 
and will continue to use their power to limit competition. The new 
regulations have far too many loop holes and with Microsoft's record 
there is no reason to believe they will change the way they do 
business. Microsoft must be held accountable and forced to allow 
applications that run on their system to be used anywhere. And they 
must be required to make their products compatible with competitive 
products.
    To make this process fair to all, we need to hear from public 
consumer groups and from state governments not just Microsoft and 
their competitors. This is a right given by the Tunney act and must 
be preserved. It is my sincere hope that you will consider these 
points before going forward. The American people deserve and have a 
right to choose the products that serve them best, the proposed 
settlement is unfair and unjust. Please allow the people a voice.
    Thank you,
    Thomas B. Daly, Ph.D.
    303-;530-;3337
    PO Box 17341
    Boulder, CO 80301



MTC-00028744

From: Vicinanza, Gregg
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 5:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please accept this comment regarding the Microsoft settlement on 
behalf of Sony.
    Gregg H. Vicinanza
    O'Melveny & Myers LLP
    555 13th Street, NW
    Washington, DC 20004
    voice (202)383-;5235
    fax (202)383-;5414
    e-mail [email protected]
    internet www.omm.com



MTC-00028745

From: William Wallace
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:16pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Shame! Microsoft is being rewarded, not penalized for illegal 
monopoly practices and restraint of trade. Is this administration 
merely pro-business, or really for a FREE market system?
    William Wallace



MTC-00028746

From: Michael T Vilas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir:
    It is time to end the costly litigation against Microsoft. I 
urge you to stop all that is continuing the delays is the 
settlement.
    Thank You:
    M Vilas



MTC-00028747

From: Thomas Treder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:16pm
Subject: I oppose the Department of Justice's proposed
    I oppose the Department of Justice's proposed settlement with 
Microsoft. None of the proposed actions appear adequate to prevent 
Microsoft from entering any new market it chooses, then utilizing a

[[Page 28427]]

combination of exclusionary licensing, predatory pricing, and all 
but unlimited marketing capital to force the incumbents into 
extinction.
    Microsoft continues to employ the tactics with which it 
decimated Netscape. Against RealPlayer, Microsoft has integrated 
Windows Media Player. To drive a wedge into the game console market, 
XBox is sold below cost.
    While the short-term benefit to the consumer is reduced cost of 
the individual commodity, the overall cost to the consumer and to 
society is huge; Operating System (Windows) and Applications 
(Office) priced far higher than any hopeful rival of equal or 
greater quality (Linux/StarOffice); reluctance of new players to 
enter the market; laughable security (ILoveYou, Nimda, Code Red), 
and ultimately a hegemony imposed with Microsoft the gatekeeper of 
all society's information flow and transactions (pending success of 
``.Net'').
    Even Judge Jackson's rememdies seemed no guarantee that 
Microsoft couldn't find a circumvention; however, that the current 
Department of Justice has volunteered a remedy weaker than one to 
which Microsoft had already acquiesed is at best difficult to 
understand, and at worst smells of malfeasance. Judge Jackson's 
remedies should be imposed upon Microsoft without delay.



MTC-00028748

From: Larry Blunk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wish to stress my opposition to current United States vs. 
Microsoft proposed Settlement Agreement. The numerous loopholes and 
lack of consequences for violation of the agreement will result in 
little or no change in Microsoft's anti-competitive behaviour.
    Perhaps most unsettling is the area of DRM and authentication 
systems, and audio/video codecs. Microsoft is attempting and 
dominate these fields through it's .Net and Windows Media services 
initiatives. There is no mention at all of compulsory licensing of 
audio/video codecs in the settlement. If Microsoft is able to 
monopolize these standards, they will extend their control beyond 
just PC hardware OEM's to all manner of audio/video playback 
devices. These include pocket audio players, personal video 
recorders, component audio receivers, DVD players, and handheld 
organizer (such as the Palm Organizer). All these device makers and 
will need to license the audio/video codecs on Microsoft's terms. 
These terms will likely forbid the use of competitive operating 
systems such as Palm OS and Linux on these devices. It will also 
require the use of Windows backend server operating systems rather 
than competing operating systems such as Unix.
    Closely related to the audio/video codecs are Microsoft DRM 
systems which are used to wrap and ``secure'' the codecs. 
DRM services are specifically excluded from compulsory licensing. 
The rationale is that licsensing them would somehow undermine their 
effectiveness. However, there is no reason these systems could not 
be licensed under a standard non-disclosure agreement (NDA). The 
same type of agreement could be used for authentication systems. I 
also note that there is a major flaw in the Department's 
understanding of authentication and cryptographic systems. A basic 
tenet in cryptography is that in order to be trusted, a 
cryptographic system should be subjected to extensive public peer 
review. Rather than relying on secrecy for security, authentication 
systems rely on the strength of their cryptographic algorithms. Even 
though the algorithms are widely published, they remain secure 
because of the mathematical complexities in defeating them. It 
should be noted that the standard for securing transactions on the 
Web today (such as credit card purchases) is the openly specified 
SSL standard. SSL employs only publicly documented and reviewed 
cryptographic mechanisms. There is even an open source 
implementation known as OpenSSL which is used extensively to secure 
transactions on the Internet. This is a difficult concept for the 
layman to understand, but it is critical to an open and competetive 
environment on the Internet.
    -Larry J. Blunk
    Saline, Michigan USA



MTC-00028749

From: Sawley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:25pm
Subject: AOL Suit
    The AOL lawsuit against Microsoft is a pathetic attempt to try 
to gain public sympathy in court against a competitor that they 
can't compete against in the public market......
    Lewis W. Sawley



MTC-00028750

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:18pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    It is my opinion as a citizen of the United States that the 
creation of a product using the gifts of intelligence and foresight 
should not be punished. We have encouraged within our nation the 
free enterprise system. Microsoft, through superior development and 
insight into consumer needs, has produced a superior product. This 
in no way deserves punishment, due to the jealousy of competitors. I 
believe that this company deserves the freedom to continue producing 
products that benefit the consumers who purchase them.
    Thank you for considering my opinion.
    Sincerely,
    Debra L. Banks
    2035 Oneida Valley Rd.
    Karns City, PA 16041



MTC-00028751

From: Stephanie Jayne Sailor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:20pm
Subject: Public comment--;Microsoft
    Department of Justice:
    The lawsuit against Microsoft is supposed to be for the good of 
the people. Instead, it's for the good of Netscape, who failed to 
compete. Microsoft didn't hurt consumers. They helped consumers. If 
you truly want to put an end to a monopoly, why don't you start with 
The U.S. Postal Service? That's a Government-created monopoly, which 
has thrived since the 1840s. It has been against the law for anyone 
to compete with the U.S. Postal Service by carrying first-class 
mail. That's a monopoly that you should stop.
    I beg of you, Department of Justice, end the Microsoft case now. 
Do not stifle innovation. Do not require Government permission for 
companies to improve their products. Such intervention only benefits 
companies who are lethargic to compete. In the end, that hurts 
taxpayers, consumers, the economy, and future of technology.
    Do not meddle with Microsoft--;or any other 
company's--;future product design decisions. Leave that to 
software executives, not judges and bureaucrats. Keep America free, 
allowing Microsoft to continue to develop affordable products, 
create jobs, and please customers. This isn't about Microsoft. It's 
about the freedom of every American company to improve their 
products. Most importantly, it's about allowing consumers the 
freedom to pass judgment with their pocketbooks, by personal choice.
    =Stephanie Sailor=
    118 Mendham Rd.
    Bernardsville, NJ 07924
    908.766.0990
    [email protected]
    http://www.StephanieSailor.com
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00028753

From: Spencer Black
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5'19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Spencer Black
Artist
Microsoft Games Studios
801-;275-;6393
[email protected]

January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    Three years ago, Microsoft was found to be in violation of 
established antitrust laws and was brought to trial in the federal 
courts. The Department of Justice and Microsoft, after six months of 
negotiations last year, managed in November to reach an agreement 
with which both parties are satisfied. Now, we find out that it will 
be determined whether it is in the best public interest to settle. 
The alternative is to reopen the case, and spend an indeterminate 
amount of time trying to reach a better settlement. Meanwhile, 
Microsoft's competitors and those who wish to gain from further 
litigation, including nine plaintiff states, are attempting to 
undermine the settlement during its review period. I do not believe 
that continued litigation would serve the public at all. The economy 
and the technology industry have suffered while this case has 
dragged on, and no good can come of extended suit. The settlement is 
fair, and, if finalized it will allow things to finally return to 
normal.

[[Page 28428]]

    Microsoft has agreed to a variety of restrictions and 
obligations under the settlement, all of which would restore a fair 
competitive atmosphere within the technology market. For example, 
Microsoft has agreed not to take retaliatory action against any 
software producer or computer maker that introduces software into 
the market that competes with Microsoft.
    I do not believe that it is in the best public interest to 
continue litigation. I urge you to support the settlement as it now 
stands.
    Sincerely,
    Spencer Black



MTC-00028754

From: Little Hen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Becky Garrett
11050 North Highway 59
Gravette, AR 72736
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft: My name is Becky Garrett. I am a resident of 
Gravette, Arkansas writing in support of the settlement recently 
reached between the federal government and Microsoft. The public 
interest will not be served by reopening litigation against 
Microsoft. Given all of the changes in direction the case has taken 
to date, the outcome of additional litigation is far from certain. 
You have a settlement agreement on the table at this time that not 
only provides certainty in the outcome of the case, but also 
provides increased opportunities for competition in the industry.
    Microsoft has agreed to either modify or eliminate allegedly 
anticompetitive business practices in the areas of pricing, 
distribution contracts, relations with software developers, and 
systems configuration. If the agreement is implemented, these 
concessions will lead to great growth in the software and computer 
industries. I hope you decide to go forward with the settlement. It 
is in the best interests of all involved.
    Yours truly,
    Becky Garrett
    cc: Representative Bob Stump



MTC-00028755

From: Bhanu Patel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:22pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
5201 Meadowview Avenue
North Bergen, NJ 07047
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my interest on the recent antitrust 
settlement between Microsoft and the US department of Justice. The 
lawsuit has gone on long enough and should be finalized. All that is 
happening now is taxpayer dollars are being wasted and other 
companies are being given the chance to tack on their own lawsuits. 
Microsoft has done wonderful things for our country including 
creating jobs, wealth, and making technological breakthroughs.
    They shouldn't be forced to disclose interfaces that are 
internal to Windows operating system products. They have spent huge 
amounts of money and resources developing these secrets. They should 
also not be prohibited from entering into agreements that obligate 
third parties to exclusively distribute Microsoft products. This 
inhibits their ability to gain market share.
    Nevertheless, the settlement should be implemented so that our 
IT sector can rebound. Our nation needs to pull out of recession and 
cannot afford to have the government interfering with the most 
successful businesses. Make the right choice and do what is best for 
the public. End the dispute.
    Sincerely,



MTC-00028756

From: Derik Stenerson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I would like to voice my position of support for concluding the 
litigation against Microsoft by approving the proposed settlement 
with the Justice Department. This case has proved not to be the best 
use of the government's resources, as the break-up attempt has only 
led to protracted dispute with no resolution. Consequently, it seems 
that accepting this current plan would be the best course of action 
for both sides at this point. The terms will be very favorable to 
Microsoft's opponents without causing severe disruption to its 
business model. Computer makers will have more flexibility to choose 
software programs for the Windows operating system, and even to 
manage specific features, like the supposedly controversial bundling 
options. Software developers will have unprecedented access to 
Windows internal interfaces and server protocols, as well as the 
ability to license its intellectual property. A non-partisan group 
of software experts will then monitor the process to ensure ongoing 
compliance. Based on these actions and measures, it seems that 
Microsoft is reaching out to the software community in a significant 
way to allow more competition in the marketplace. It should be in 
the best interest of all parties to take this opportunity and run 
with it, rather than delay further the possibility of a mutual 
solution. I look forward to your finalization of this agreement at 
your earliest convenience.
    Thank you very much.
    Sincerely,
    Derik Stenerson
    7845 235th PL NE
    Redmond, WA 98053Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer 
download :
    http://explorer.msn.com



MTC-00028758

From: john w orlandella
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:24pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I see no reason for the government to continue the case against 
Microsoft. The only ones who can possibly gain are the attorneys. 
Please go with the current settlement and lets get this economy 
going again.
    John and Jacqueline Orlandella
    Redington Shores, Fl 33708 registered independents



MTC-00028759

From: Dean Royalty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:25pm
Subject: settlement
    To whom it my concern:
    It is my opinion that the proposed Microsoft settlement should 
be finalized as written. We, the public, need this enacted to help 
our economy to move forward, and help all who access the internet. 
As a senior,
    I say it is now time to settle this matter in this fair and 
equitable way.
    Respectfully, Dean Royalty
    CC:Winnie R. Hanna,Shirley M. Trigg,sandra murphy,PAT...



MTC-00028760

From: Linda Jo Hamlin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Antitrust Division,
    I cannot even guess at what is fair or correct according to the 
law's eyes to levy upon Microsoft, but I do want to comment 
regarding this issue. I have always used an apple computer (for many 
reasons) but I have to use some Microsoft software (Word) to process 
documents into booklets and layouts. This software often causes 
crashes as it tries to install over my operating system. The entire 
screen will freeze and go into a loop. When I reboot my computer, it 
alerts me that something has tried to rewrite my software. That is 
just a wrong thing to have happen. It is installed, I bought it, 
paid Microsoft for it and that should be enough for Microsoft. The 
rest is nefarious intervention by software written with a company's 
agenda. Please reprimand this company fittingly. Today the world of 
competition and deregulation is being swallowed up by profiteering. 
How can the little guy protect himself from huge, powerful and rich 
entities if there is no substantial result from proven misdeeds? It 
must have consequence when actions are done that are not for the 
good of the economic system we have here in the United States and 
the consequences should be a deterrent in the future to dissuade 
others from the same type of actions.
    Thank you for your time reading this. I appreciate it.
    Sincerely,
    Linda Jo Hamlin, one of the little guys.



MTC-00028761

From: Harlan Wilkerson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:25pm
Subject: Proposed Settlement

[[Page 28429]]

    I feel that adoption of the proposed settlement is not in the 
public interest.
    The Appeals Court 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.''
    Windows has gained it's market position not by consumer demand, 
but by Microsoft's almost total control of production. In the past, 
Microsoft has used exclusive OEM licensing and --;marketing 
incentives to pass along the so-called ``Microsoft tax'' 
to every PC consumer. Most of the top 20 OEMs simply don't offer PC 
systems without the Windows operating system pre-installed. 
Microsoft has urged (and rewarded) the 0EMs to ``just say 
no'' to buyers who request a so called ``naked PC'' 
(a PC with no pre-installed software). This is ironic since the 
OEM's associated support costs should actually be reduced. The OEMs 
that do offer alternatives to Microsoft's Windows charge essentially 
the same price for non-Windows models. This is true even for those 
with pre-installied versions of absolutely free operating systems 
e.g. Linux, or the BSDs. These operating systems can be freely 
downloaded and installed on all of a consumers PCs without any 
licensing fee whatsoever. Consumers who have opted to install these 
free operating systems (on their own) are usually frustrated in any 
attempt to obtain refunds from the OEMs for their unused Windows 
licenses. This despite provisions for a refund from the OEM that are 
contained in the Microsoft Windows EULA. It's no accident that 
consumers can't determine the fair price of a PC under these 
circumstances. This was highlighted during the trial by a grass 
roots movement that culminated in a ``Windows Refund 
Day''. Consumers who purchase Microsoft Windows through an OEM 
usually have no standing in class action suits brought against 
Microsoft.
    Nothing in the proposed settlement prohibits Microsoft from 
continuing to offer OEMs existing forms of advertising or marketing 
incentives (on an equitable basis) to include Windows on every 
machine, or to decline to sell ``naked PCs''. We currently 
are in the worst economic recession in at least a decade. It's 
doubtful that some of todays OEMs will even survive. Nonetheless, 
many of these same ``equipment manufacturers'' won't sell 
their equipment at any price without pre-installed software from 
Microsoft. This is hardly the behavior of an unfettered market.
    Microsoft should be required to post the costs of it's OEM 
products on a public web site, and they should be precluded from 
offerring any incentives to OEMs to curtail the sales of 
``naked PCs''
    To paraphrase the Appeals Court by the time this case is 
resolved the facts will be ancient history, but the effects of the 
illegal acts will have caused harm nonetheless. The proposed remedy 
does nothing to ``deny to the defendant the fruits of its 
statutory violation''. Microsoft staunchly denies any wrong 
doing in it's public statements, retains billions in capital, and 
isn't even held liable for the people's costs in prosecuting the 
case.
    In crafting a remedy that terminates the illegal monopoly or 
eliminates practices likely to result in monopolization in the 
future it is important that hearings be held to investigate how we 
got here in the first place. The Federal Trade Commision and DOJ 
took up Microsoft's trade practices involving OEM per-machine-
licensing of MSDOS. During this case a private antitrust suit was 
brought against Microsoft by Caldera. That suit was settled but 
provided no relief for the millions of consumers who purchased 
Digital Research's Disk Operating System. Digital publicly 
complained that they had sufferred from Microsoft's anticompetitive 
per-machine-licensing scheme and were wrongly excluded from the 
Windows 3.1 beta testing program--;even though they were 
participants in beta testing earlier versions of Windows. Digital's 
Operating system didn't compete with Windows, but did compete with 
MSDOS. At the time these were seperate Microsoft retail products. 
The respected magazine and online publication Dr Dobbs Journal 
revealed that the Windows 3.1 beta contained code that was only 
useful for detecting Digital Research DOS. This code gave the user 
error messages or simply halted a users machine whenever Digital 
Research DOS was detected. Windows version 4 and MSDOS version 7 
were eventually bundled into Windows 95 which carried exclusive OEM 
license agreements that didn't permit OEMs to use or dual boot other 
operating systems like Digital's DOS. For example, some Hitachi PCs 
had a hidden copy of the BeOS that consumers could only discover and 
activate using instructions on Hitachi's web site. Digital, Hitachi 
and BeOS have since exited the PC OEM and PC Operating system 
business. For it's part the DOJ has complained publicly that 
Microsoft violated the first consent agreement. The practice of 
monopolies denying companies that compete in any software catagory 
timely access to APIs, and the practice of bundling seperate retail 
products for anticompetitive reasons, and/or using exclusive 
licensing agreements to harm competitors is a common and recurring 
theme. The judge was correct in denying Microsoft's request to limit 
the scope of the remedies without an evidentiary hearing, and the 
DOJ was premature in dropping their case in-main on product 
bundling. Microsoft is engaged in world-wide trade and the DOJ and 
European antitrust regulators seem uncoordinated and out of step. 
The European regulators have taken up complaints that Microsoft has 
withheld access to Windows server software API's that are necessary 
for interoperability with other network operating systems, and the 
bundling of Windows Media Player in Windows XP. Microsoft is not so 
quietly announcing it's plans for a single Internet logon 
authentication service it's calling ``.NET''.
    The stated objective of this initiative is to leverage the 
Windows monoply in order to create a new (Internet) monopoly. While 
these practices may or may not be lawful, it's doubtful that all of 
the practices likely to result in monopolization in the future have 
been eliminated without a single hearing on the issues here in our 
courts. Most non-Microsoft operating systems provide a boot manager 
that allows consumers to use several operating systems. In fact, 
Microsoft includes a boot manager that allows consumers to use 
multiple (older) versions of Windows e.g. Windows 2000 and Windows 
98. The act of installing a Microsoft operating system doesn't 
invalidate a consumers licences for a competitors products. Yet 
installing (or reinstalling) Microsoft Windows will always result in 
a consumers other operating systems becoming inaccessable. This is 
anticompetitive behavior. Microsoft should be required to 
automatically add other operating systems to it's boot manager in 
the same manner that it adds it's own products.
    The DOJ and Microsoft appear to have forgotten that this case is 
about--;Personal Computers--; if a consumer shops for a PC, 
and makes a purchase based on the software selection, it makes no 
sense to provide Microsoft the arbitrary right within fourteen days 
to delete icons or programs and substitute their own because they 
have judged the competitors product lacking in some quality or state 
they deem essential.
    Microsoft has stated that their power to innovate or bundle 
applications into Windows XP is essential to the economic recovery 
of the PC industry. The PC OEMs have testified that there is no 
viable alternative to Windows. In the past year alone private 
business LANs and Internet companies have suffered billions of 
dollars in damages caused by trojan or virus programs that 
specifically targeted Windows PCs. The Executive and Legislative 
branches of the Federal Government have recognized the Internet as a 
vital piece of our national and international infrastructure. They 
have established agencies tasked with it's protection. Indeed one 
reason for pursuing the proposed settlement after September 11 was 
``the national interest''. It's hard to understand why 
much of Microsoft's ill gotten monopoly shouldn't be considered an 
essential public facility. Certainly consumers have a right to 
migrate their own IP out of proprietary Microsoft file formats. 
Microsoft should be required to publish the file format information 
needed for other applications to interoperate with files created by 
MS Office. This is certainly the case with regard to Apple Computer 
users who have already been threatened with the cancellation of the 
Apple version of MS Office.
    In conclusion, the court combined the individual State and DOJ 
cases. A settlement that doesn't include half the plantiffs is at 
best not a settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Harlan L. Wilkerson
    Hutchinson, KS. 67501



MTC-00028762

From: Kevin McCoy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly disagree with the proposed settlement. It does not go 
nearly far enough to restore competition and deny Microsoft the 
fruits of their illegally obtained market advantage. In particular 
the Office suite monopoly is devastating to competitors and 
consumers through lack of choice. I think the

[[Page 28430]]

nine states that are still pursuing litigation are much closer to 
purposing a remedy that is in agreement with the appeals courts 
findings.
    Sincerely,
    Kevin D. McCoy
    Orem, Utah



MTC-00028763

From: W. Curtiss Priest
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:26pm
Subject: Proposed Microsoft settlement: woefully insufficient
    Dear Justice Department,
    As a software innovator and holder of several software patents, 
I have first hand knowledge of how extremely brutal, unfair and 
bullying Microsoft is to others in the industry. I was involved for 
five years in negotiation, arbitration and potential legal action 
against Microsoft which only caused Microsoft to spend incredible 
resources to deny me and Humanic Systems any just and due 
compensation for our innovative work.
    In my opinion, as President of Humanic Systems, a company that 
was (above) abused by Microsoft regarding our intellectual property 
for significant components of Microsoft Outlook, the proposed remedy 
is extremely inadequate:
    1. It does not provide substantial redress for the prior losses 
caused by MS on others
    2. Secrecy provisions undermind the ability to obtain API 
information and will systematically be used by MS, in my opinion, to 
continue its monopoly stranglehold
    3. There are no structural remedies, and, without those, the 
``fascist'' mindset of Ballmer and Gates will continue to 
dominate the thinking of each and every employee
    4. Microsoft's stated opinions about various forms of open 
software, being a ``cancer'' undermines the ability for 
consumers to get the maximum benefit for the least cost
    This position, alone, demonstrates that they want ``all the 
marbles'' and it is a ``winner take all'' game
    Consider, for example, a PBS documentary about extreme 
competition as taught within the Gates family as Mr. Gates grew up
    This person does not know the word cooperation, and, without 
extremely directive measures, will never show cooperation to the 
rest of the software industry that is slowly dying under his 
ruthless hand.
    Very truly yours,
    Dr. W. Curtiss Priest
    President, Humanic Systems
    Director, Center for Information, Technology & Society
    Member, American Economics Association
    Prior, Principal Research Associate, MIT
    Author,--;Technological Innovation for a Dynamic 
Economy--;, 1980 (Pergamon Press)
    --;Risks, Concerns and Social Legislation--;, 1988 
(Westview Press)
    W. Curtiss Priest, Director, CITS
    Center for Information, Technology & Society
    466 Pleasant St., Melrose, MA 02176
    Voice: 781-;662-;4044 
[email protected]
    Fax: 781-;662-;6882 WWW: http://Cybertrails.org



MTC-00028764

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Department of Justice
    Re: Microsoft Settlement
    Incredibly, the foremost innovative and economy enhancing 
company of the past fifty years has faced and continues to face an 
onslaught of legal challenges because of its superior and highly 
successful business model. This is happening through the combined 
conspiratorial actions of past federal and present state governments 
allied with certain business companies, i.e., Sun Microsytems, 
Oracle, AOL, et al. What these companies could not achieve in the 
ultimate test--;the marketplace--;they seek to gain via the 
use of Machiavellian chicanery and political cronyism; particularly 
a number of State Attorneys General and the foul, disgraced Clinton 
Justice Department.
    There is no harm here to the American or Foreign consumer. To 
the contrary, Microsoft has made sense of the Internet and has 
provided commonality and standardization and thus ease of use to the 
consumer, not obscurantism and confusion such as that which existed 
prior to the advent of Microsoft's operating systems.
    If there is any illegality being practiced relative to the 
issues at hand concerning Microsoft, it is the conspiracy of 
Government operating hand in hand with some of the slimiest, 
slipperiest billionaire business operatives, and their surrogates, 
in existence in the world today.
    The Government must reward business excellence and 
innovativeness; Government must recognize and commend those 
enterprises that enhance economic activity; the Government and the 
Courts must not penalize achievement and success to satisfy the 
politically connected obstructionist losers.



MTC-00028765

From: Sam Axton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    or to whom it may concern,
    I am opposed, in principle, to any penalty meted to Microsoft 
for anti-trust reasons. I use Microsoft products voluntarily which 
is the only way one can use their products. Any claim to the 
contrary is simply wrong.
    The free market will punish anyone who mistreats their 
customers. Microsoft has been nothing short of wonderful to the 
success of my business and personal life. They deserve their success 
and must be left unhindered to continue their efforts for my best 
interests. I do not want you to presume to tell me what software 
configuration I want in my computer nor what any company can bundle 
to meet my needs. I will decide whether Microsoft or any other 
company is a success for me or not.
    The idea that another company cannot compete with Microsoft is 
every indication that it does not have what I nor others want. I and 
every person and/or company must be free to create and sell their 
property to any other willing person and it is your job to protect 
that most fundamental right not to undermine and punish it.
    Sincerely,
    Sam Axton
    Reward is commensurate with effort.



MTC-00028766

From: David Rahrer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    It would be difficult in the time I have available to describe 
the transparent and political nature this case has taken. I will, 
however, do my best to summarize some of my thoughts for the record, 
as I believe I represent the majority of working America who simply 
don't have the time to make their opinions formally known. It is 
these people who some parties continue to claim have been so 
desparately harmed by Microsoft. I don't think this is so.
    It is clear that MS was extremely aggressive and, in some 
instances, outside the law in its persuit of the browser market. In 
the media at the time were boastings by Netscape that they would 
destroy windows, creating their own desktop environment. They were 
quite serious and I think MS realized that. I would also like you to 
recognize that NS browsers were freely downloadable at the time and 
find it hard to believe that sales to average consumers were a 
significant source of revenue. It was the corporate sales that drove 
their engine so please keep in perspective that the majority of 
consumers were not paying for the endless revisions of the NS 
Browser, they simply downloaded and installed it.
    When MS came out with IE, it was not very good and most people 
continued using NS, even though IE came with Windows 95. What 
difference does it make which ``comes with'' the OS. Do 
the complaintants believe the public is so stupid that they just 
take what is put before them? It was because IE became so much 
better than NS that NS failed. They had geared themselves towoard 
owning the market--;their own ``monopoly''--;and 
then beyond to the desktop. It didn't happen, in large part because 
MS created a much better browser and, forseeing that the Internet 
would be an extension of the desktop environment, included it as 
standard equipment with Windows. To this day one can install any 
browser one chooses--;even pay for Opera. Or, one has the choice 
of using what comes with the Windows OS. Those 12% of users who 
purchase Apple systems, also have a built-in browser but can install 
any they like. For those of us that have been using computers for a 
long time, it is quite obvious that MS has done the 
unimaginable--;converted a world of fragmented systems and 
hardware to the interchangable, useful, indespensible marvels of 
today. It had to happen that someone would do this, and I think it 
is the picture of an American success story that they did. We should 
not be continually beating on a company that is in reality the crown 
jewel of

[[Page 28431]]

American enterprise. What better example can you offer? And all this 
because it's fashionable to hate the big guy, and also that some 
people would rather blame their own business model failures on MS 
instead of finding ways to innovate.
    To be perfectly blunt, as a middleclass, average American, I 
have been quite disgusted during most of this process. MS doesn't 
produce tobacco , they aren't the enemy. They deserve to be fined 
and put on notice about the laws they did in fact violate--;not 
to have a state by state feeding frenzy on the most viable 
corporation in our country--;all fueled by none other 
than. . . Competitors. It's not moral, should not be legal 
and the rest of the world is laughing the hidious way we have 
allowed it to happen.
    It is unfortunate, but I believe much of the correspondance you 
receive will be from those with an axe to grind or who followed the 
directions on a form letter with hopes of collecting an offered 
prize. You probably won't hear from the majority, those who are 
simply working and enjoying the bright, boundless world open to them 
through the Internet and their computer. Not only would they not be 
enjoying this as easily or as cheaply if MS had not been sucessful, 
but they might not be enjoying it at all. These are the people who 
are collectively thrown around in discussions by politicians and 
sour CEO's hoping to score points or money by attacking MS while 
it's fashionable.
    I emplore you to settle this trial as swiftly and as close to 
the current framework as possible. It has run on far too long as it 
is and we have far, far, more important things to work on. Thank you 
for your time.
    David Rahrer



MTC-00028767

From: bobalexander
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:26pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    please approve settlement as is. it is both fair and reasonable.



MTC-00028768

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:26pm
Subject: Microsoft action
To: DOJ 
From: Lee Welter 
Subject: Microsoft action
Date: 28 January 2002
    Greetings:
    Please give the DOJ settlement with Microsoft a chance to work 
in its current form.
    I believe in free-market competition on a level playing field: 
however, weakening a strong competitor is not a substitute.
    Cordially,
    Lee



MTC-00028769

From: Alex Lazutin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:14pm
Subject: USAGLazutin--;Paula--;1011--;0122 (1).doc
    25814 S Greencastle Drive
    Sun Lakes, AZ 85248-;6816
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing in full support of the recent settlement between 
Microsoft and the US Department of Justice.
    Although the lawsuit was lengthy and costly for taxpayers, I am 
happy that Microsoft will not be broken up. The terms of the 
settlement seem fair.
    Under the terms of the settlement Microsoft has agreed to 
improve its relations with computer makers and software developers. 
It has also agreed to design future Windows versions so that 
competitors can more easily promote their own products. These 
concessions and more make up the basis for a settlement that is 
aimed at protecting consumer rights.
    While it is not perfect, it is the best thing that could happen. 
Our nation needs Microsoft back in action and innovating like they 
have been for over 10 years. Hopefully, your office can overcome any 
opposition there may be in the federal government to the settlement, 
and bring a swift end to this already tiresome case. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Paula Lazutin
    President of Alco Marketing and Sales
    Microsoft shareholder



MTC-00028770

From: Andrew Neely
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a longtime computer user, and recent professional who uses 
both Windows and Macintosh both at work and at home, I feel that 
without a doubt, Microsoft is a predatory monopoly. I have used many 
different software products, and it has only been in the last three 
years or so, during the intense pressure that the DOJ initially 
brought to bear with it's antitrust lawsuit that I've even seen 
anything in the way of alternate OS offerings making their way onto 
store shelves and into OEM computers.
    Microsoft has not only dominated the OS market to the detriment 
of its competition, but to that of its end users as well. That 
blackhat hackers have been able to repeatedly exploit the same set 
of vulnerabilities in the close relationship between recent versions 
of Windows and their mail clients, Outlook and Outlook Express, is 
inexplicable. Simply changing either piece of software, or both, 
would close a major security opening in it's products. However, not 
only has Microsoft failed to address this in a meaningful way, it 
has managed to avoid all liability to what for all intents and may 
be thought of as a design flaw. Had a car company's mistakes cost 
the same amount of lost man hours and money as Microsoft's 
oversights have, year after year, I doubt that they would even 
continue to operate as a company, much less as the most powerful one 
in its industry.
    As a United States citizen I ask that my opinion be firmly 
registered that Microsoft can only be brought to heel as a good 
corporate citizen by direct oversight and measures designed to 
cripple the leverage that its Windows brand of operating systems 
software gives it over competitors. Simply allowing this company to 
give away so many billion dollars worth of retail software is 
ineffective. This will not only not cost the company anything like 
the sticker price of the donations, but in fact allow it to more 
firmly entrench itself into area it already has inroads into. 
Monetary damages should be settled in CASH, and the company should 
be subjected to direct oversight of its activities for at least five 
years. This seems to be the outside amount of time for it to develop 
a generation of products all the way across the board, and tying its 
hands for this length of time will help other companies to get a 
foothold they badly need to compete.
    Sincerely,
    Andrew Neely



MTC-00028771

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:27pm
Subject: (no subject)
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S.Department of Justice
Washington DC 20530-;000i
    I'm writing to you in the hope that you will move forward in 
settling the complaints against Microsoft as the agreement that your 
office has recommended.
    As a faithful taxpayer and retirees, my wife and I rely on the 
economy being strong. Microsoft is a present and future major player 
to that end.
    Thankyou.
    Sincerely,
    Ron and MaryLou Pettengill
    84 Westover Drive
    Webster, NY 14580
    CC:[email protected]@
inetgw



MTC-00028772

From: Gil Friend
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
United States Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    I am writing to comment on the proposed Microsoft/DOJ anti-trust 
settlement. As a business executive at a company both highly 
dependent on computing technology and specifically involved in 
software development, I've come to the conclusion that this 
settlement is not in the public interest, and fails to remedies the 
problems that provoked the action in the first place.
    The settlement leaves the Microsoft monopoly intact, with 
numerous opportunities to the company to effectively exempt itself 
from crucial provisions. The recently proposed 
``donation'' to schools is just one example of how 
Microsoft can turn matters to their own advantage (in this case by 
decimating Apple's position in the education market).
    In addition, the proposed settlement fails to address the 
critical ``barrier to entry''

[[Page 28432]]

problem, enabling Microsoft to maintain an effective 
``lock'' on the applications market.
    In addition, the proposed settlement fails to address the 
critical ``applications barrier to entry'' associated with 
the installed base of 70,000 Windows applications, enabling 
Microsoft to maintain an effective ``lock'' on the 
operating systems market by denying competitors with other operating 
systems the information needed to run these other applications on 
other operating systems. Any settlement must make it 
easier--;not harder--;for competitors to run the Windows 
applications.
    Consumers, not Microsoft, should decide what products are on 
their computers. The settlement must eliminate Microsoft's various 
barriers--;business and technical--;to allowing combinations 
of non-Microsoft operating systems, applications, and software 
components to run properly with Microsoft products.
    The remedies proposed by the Plaintiff Litigating States are in 
the public interest and absolutely necessary, but they are not 
sufficient without these remedies.
    The Tunney Act provides for the Court to hold public 
proceedings, with citizens and consumer groups afforded an equal 
opportunity to participate, along with Microsoft's competitors and 
customers. I hope you will encourage those proceedings, and consider 
carefully how to proceed in this matter. Your decisions have great 
significance for the health of the US economy's most vital 
industries, by eliminating Microsoft's ability to illegal constrain 
markets and innovation.
    Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important 
matter.
    Sincerely yours,
    Gil Friend
    President & CEO
    Natural Logic, Inc.
    PO Box 119
    Berkeley CA 94701 
    Natural Logic, Inc.
    More value. Less stuff.[tm]
    Tel: 1-;877-;NatLogic
    http://www.NatLogic.com



MTC-00028773

From: Bill Foerster
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:31 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    US DOJ:
    Attached is a letter expressing my support for the proposed 
settlement with Microsoft.
    Regards,
    Bill
    William M. Foerster
    Foerster Bhupathi International, LLC
    8111 Preston Road, Suite 600
    Dallas, Texas 75225
    1.214.369.3242 (business)
    1.214.369.5363 (fax)
    1.214.244.9400 (cell)
    [email protected]
    www.fbillc.com
William Foerster
8111 Preston Road
Suite 610
Dallas, TX 75218
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I want to take a moment to express my support for the settlement 
reached in November between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. 
I believe the settlement is fair to both sides and represents an 
opportunity for everyone to move forward.
    The terms of the settlement are very strict and mandate a number 
of concessions from Microsoft. Among the terms of the settlement, 
Microsoft has agreed to license its Windows operating system 
products to the twenty largest computer makers on identical terms 
and conditions, including price.
    There should be no question as to Microsoft's compliance with 
the terms of the settlement. It calls for a technical committee to 
monitor Microsoft's business practices in the future.
    I hope that your continued support for finalizing the settlement 
will convince those states who are moving forward in their 
litigation to amend their positions.
    It is well past the point for the federal and state governments 
to focus their resources on more urgent matters, like stimulating 
our economy.
    Sincerely,
    William Foerster



MTC-00028774

From: Ernest Kahn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    BlankTo whom it may concern
    In my experience Microsoft has turned out good products a fair 
prices, It seems that their products where simply better than others 
and they facilitated communications.
    Ernest J. Kahn
    Sharon, MA



MTC-00028775

From: Jim
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:29pm
Subject: anti trust
    I think America has forgotten that Bill Gates has brought this 
country to where it is. Any attack against him is from greed and 
jelousy. He has created more jobs than any one else in the area of 
free interprise. I personally am ashamed my country would do this to 
him.
    James Payne



MTC-00028776

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please see attachment
28 Suncrest Terrace
Oneonta, NY 13820
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Today is the last day that I can contact you regarding the 
finalization of the Microsoft antitrust settlement. I would like to 
share my view that as the settlement is written, it appears fair to 
all parties. Apparently, Microsoft has made numerous changes to 
satisfy this agreement, including agreeing to work with a Technical 
Committee that will serve as a watchdog of its activities and 
practices. It seems to me that Microsoft and the government, 
possibly no lover of the company, have hammered out an agreement 
that each party can live with. Since this is the case, there should 
be no reason to alter the agreement...I have become increasingly 
cynical, believing that additional requirements are wanted by 
competitors to satisfy their interests, certainly NOT the 
``public's''.
    My life, and my business'' life, have been improved and 
made easier by Microsoft. The adage ``crying over sprit 
milk'' has been a tactic for decades. It is time for 
competitors to step up their efforts to compete: to innovate, 
improve and participate in the technology revolution that just won't 
quit. I also support the philanthropic works of the Gates family and 
feel certain they will continue to lead the US in discovering and 
pursuing worthwhile projects, some that the United States has 
ignored or underfunded for decades. Let Microsoft's competitors 
follow in its footsteps and show the world that the corporate world 
can think beyond the ``bottom line'' and lead with 
generosity. Thank you for calling for comments, and for your 
attention.
    Sincerely,
    Carola Lewis



MTC-00028777

From: Edward Becerra
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to tentative settlement of the United States vs. 
Microsoft antitrust lawsuit.
    Edward Becerra
    Haxtun, Colorado 80731



MTC-00028778

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Attorney General John Ashcroft;
    Now is the time to drop the charges against Microsoft and get on 
with the real business at hand, the Enron mess!! Microsoft has not 
caused thousands of people to loose their jobs, caused millions of 
people to loose much of their life savings, and to be so closely 
tied to the Bush administration, that it causes concern among 
voters. Microsoft is just doing a better job than the rest and 
should be allowed to continue it's leadership role. We all benefit 
from their expertice.
    Dale Schendel,
    Bloomington, Mn



MTC-00028779

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
US Dept. of Justice (Legal)
    The settlement is more then generous. I do not, and did not 
agree with the government

[[Page 28433]]

action. It is not the justice departments job to aid and abet 
competitors who cannot make it on their own.
    As an example, I cannot buy a Chrysler auto frame, and a General 
Motors Body and a Ford Transmission, yet that is what you have asked 
Microsoft to do with it's software. To force a company to design 
product so that others made add on to it is nut justice. It maybe 
legal, but not justice. Were we the public to start to buy all 
Fords, would you take action against Ford to force them to redesign 
there product so that Chrysler can put its motor in? I think not.
    ACCEPT THE SETTLEMENT AND GET OUT OF THE CASE NOW.
    CC:[email protected]@
inetgw



MTC-00028780

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:32pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I am responding to the U.S. goverment's challenge to Microsoft 
regarding their conduct in the competitive marketplace. I am 
speaking from the position of a retired CEO for one of Howard 
Hughes'' companies.
    I see a great parallel between the Microsoft case and the 
lawsuit against Hughes by TWA. After years of legal actions it 
finally reached the Supreme Court. In short order it was thrown out. 
Hughes won. The reason was logic. Hughes owned 70 percent of the TWA 
stock when he was challenged with mismanagement! The Supreme Court 
recognized the obvious. He had the legal right to make the decisions 
involved.
    The Microsoft case is different in detail, but identical in 
concept. The actions each were (are) are charged with represent 
normal, legal and proper competitive practice. Both Hughes and 
Microsoft had the right to optimize their hard won positions just as 
every other company does in the worldwide marketplace. A point 
missed by the Monday morning, arm-chair critics is that competition 
is based on survival. The professional football team doesn't let up 
on the opposing team because it might lose the game in the process. 
The competitors in the Microsoft case know this is the way 
competition works. They operate this way too! In fact their present 
legal action is just another weapon they chose to use. And the state 
attourney generals who are fighting Microsoft see profit for their 
state or political advantage.
    My plea is not to let them get away with it!! There is no end to 
this sort of challenge to the healthy capitalist system where 
innovation is the engine. My suggestion is to review the TWA versus 
Hughes Tool Company decision by the
    U.S. Supreme Court as a reference.
    Tom Stuelpnagel
    [email protected]
    (805) 595 2771



MTC-00028781

From: Stan Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Department of Justice
From: Stanford L. Smith (User of Windows)
    Please do whatever you can to bring this whole Microsoft action 
to a close. It appears that the only thing keeping it going is the 
strong ``Litigation and Lobby'' being financed by 
Microsoft competitors who are able to keep the pressure on the nine 
states that won't buy in to your settlement. At least the DOJ 
settlement seems to have us (consumers) in mind rather than the 
welfare of the Microsoft competitors.
    The sooner we can get back to letting these companies spend 
their money on R & D rather than lawyers, the better off we will 
all be.
    Thanks for listening.



MTC-00028782

From: Timothy Buckley
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 5:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe this case is a deliberate attempt by companies such as 
Netscape to use legal methods to help level the playing field 
instead of innovating and creating a better product. I urge the 
court to accept the proposed remedies, and let this case be done and 
over with. Any further remedies will only serve to help Microsoft's 
competitors, not Microsoft's consumers.
    Thank you,
    Tim Buckley
    Lead Credit Coordinator
    (425) 889-;3930



MTC-00028783

From: Allan Engle/wellness/stusvc/Okstate
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    In regard to Microsoft's long history of noncompliance, and 
their more recent delay and defer strategies, I would strongly urge 
that you scrap the proposed settlement in favor of a penalty that is 
more self-enforcing. Breakup of the company would meet this 
criteria. If you give them the leeway contained in the proposed 
settlement, they will attempt to circumvent it at every opportunity.
    Sincerely,
    Allan Engle
    Allan Engle, Ph.D.
    Certified Novell Administrator
    Oklahoma State University
    Seretean Wellness Center
    405-;744-;6838



MTC-00028784

From: Ruffin Bailey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Under the Tunney Act, I would like to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement.
    I find the punishments levied for a company that ?engaged in a 
variety of exclusionary acts designed to protect its operating 
system monopoly? are wholly inadequate, amounting to little more 
than a slap on the wrist. I would like the settlement to have more 
teeth that would serve to officially level the playing field in the 
personal computer operating system market without hurting the people 
at Microsoft that have put in countless hours to create what is a 
useful product. Splitting Microsoft into a number of companies that 
all have rights to sell and develop newly forked versions of the 
operating system would be a great first step. But if this cannot be 
accomplished, there are still several things that the Department of 
Justice can do to help with the state of Microsoft's monopoly.
    There should be no monetary penalties from Microsoft for 
original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) that sell computers bundled 
with Microsoft's operating systems for the inclusion of any 
software, whether Sun's Java Virtual Machine, Netscape/AOL's 
Netscape browser, free alternatives to Microsoft Office, or the 
ability to ?dual-boot? into other alternative operating systems 
preinstalled on the machine, like Linux or FreeBSD. For every pre-
packaged solution offered by Microsoft, whether its Internet 
Explorer, MediaPlayer, or what-have-you, there should be another, 
out of the box alternative for computer users ready for use like 
Mozilla or Real's
    RealPlayer or Apple's QuickTime. These should not be secondary 
products, but true alternatives that users can choose upon first 
booting their new computers, and should also be alternatives that 
can be accessed at a future date.
    Simply put, not enough has been done to level the playing field. 
Microsoft's aggressive tendencies can be counterbalanced by 
providing a level playing field for OEM's to sell their hardware of 
choice with software of choice without punishing those who have put 
in hard work at Microsoft unduly as well.
    Please reconsider your original, relatively light sentencing.
    Wm. Ruffin Bailey
    Turben Place
    Mount Pleasant, SC 29466



MTC-00028785

From: Michael Crozier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:33pm
Subject: Comments on the PFJ for USA vs MS
    I am fully in agreement to the criticisms of the PFJ that Dan 
Kegal has collected at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html.
    In particular, I am concerned with the licencing practices that 
Microsoft uses with OEM's and end user software.
    Michael Crozier
    834 NE Shaver ST
    Portland OR 97212



MTC-00028786

From: Vicky Francis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am in favor of the settlement of the Microsoft antitrust case. 
In a perfect world, I would like to see the case dropped in its 
entirety.
    However, I recognize that the likelihood of this happening is 
slim, so I support the steps Microsoft is taking to bring this case 
to a conclusion. The terms of the settlement

[[Page 28434]]

agreement are more than fair. In fact, I think they are entirely too 
harsh. For example, Microsoft has agreed to the creation of a 
technical oversight committee that will monitor the way they conduct 
their business. In our free enterprise system, this seems especially 
restrictive. They have also agreed to not retaliate against those 
who compete against them, or those who promote Microsoft's 
competitors. Our free market does not appear to be so free after 
all.
    While I think the agreement really goes much farther than it 
should, I fully support Microsoft's decision to do what is best for 
consumers, the economy, and the IT industry as a whole--;and 
that is to move on.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Vicky Francis



MTC-00028787

From: Morton M Vogel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:37pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    It is time to bring the above matter to finalization. The time, 
effort and money being expended on this extended litagation is 
wrong. At this time we should be expending our efforts to enhance 
and develope the best in the computer world, both hardware and 
sfotware and not be bogged down in non productive situations. Reach 
a settlement now, so that we can all move forward. Litigation does 
not produce progress- only additional income for the legal 
profession.
    Morton M. Vogel
    e-mail Mortlee@ Juno.com
    CC:[email protected]@
inetgw



MTC-00028788

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please find attached the objections to the settlement proposal. 
The original format is .sxw (OpenOffice), and I apologize in advance 
for any problems in converting it to MS Word, RTF and HTML formats, 
which I also attach. I will fax a copy in short order so you may see 
the original.
    Unfortunately some time commitments have prevented me from fully 
addressing all the issues. Within the next week or two a more 
complete draft will be available. I pray you will still consider it 
that time- given the utmost importance of this settlement on the 
future of our society and the freedoms which we enjoy.
    Best regards,
    Andreas Pour
    Chairman
    KDE League, Inc.
Antitrust Division U.S. Department of Justice 601 D Street NW Suite 
1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
The Honorable Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
333 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Re: US v. Microsoft, Civil Action No. 98-;1232: Revised 
Proposed Final Judgment
    The Honorable Judge Kollar-Kotelly and the US Department of 
Justice: Please find attached the firm objections of the KDE League, 
Inc. to the above- referenced proposed final judgment (the 
``Proposal''). The KDE League is a group of industry 
leaders and KDE developers focused on facilitating the promotion, 
distribution, and development of KDE. KDE is a contemporary, free 
``Open Source'' desktop environment.
    In many ways, KDE is the functional equivalent of Windows. It 
consists of a modern, elegant, intuitive desktop environment, 
including a modern browser, accompanied by a host of easy-to-use and 
easy-to-learn applications, including the productivity/office suite 
KOffice. In addition, KDE provides a broad array of intuitive 
graphical configuration tools. In fact, APPS.KDE.com (a KDE/Qt 
application website) lists over 1,250 publicly-available KDE 
applications (it should be noted that someone using KDE can also run 
a number of non-KDE applications, such as GNOME, Motif, wxWindows, 
X, etc. applications).
    The comprehensive set of tools available to KDE users combine to 
make system administration substantially easier than the standard 
command-line-driven UNIX/Linux administration, and hence make Linux 
and other UNIXes more competitive with Microsoft not only in the 
desktop markets but also in the server operating system markets.
    While KDE is most commonly used in conjunction with Linux, it is 
extremely portable and versatile, and does not depend on any 
particular operating system. For example, it also runs successfully 
on many other systems (such as Sun's Solaris, Compaq's Tru64, IBM's 
AIX, HP's HP-UX, and other UNIXes).
    Moreover, since KDE is based on an outstanding graphical toolkit 
called Qt, and since Qt is also available for Windows, the new Mac 
OS X, as well as embedded devices (such as Sharp's new Zaurus), KDE 
has the potential to become a familiar environment deployed in a 
broad array of heterogeneous environments.
    As you are undoubtedly aware, Microsoft has often been noted, 
during the trial and particularly in recent months, as viewing Open 
Source as the only significant challenge to its reign. So far, Open 
Source--;particularly Linux--;has been largely limited to 
server systems. But in recent months the defendant has been paying 
increasing attention to KDE, and at this juncture KDE is the major 
direct competitor with Microsoft Windows desktop operating system 
products and Microsoft middleware and productivity applications and, 
through its capacity to simplify installation, usage and 
administration, a major indirect competitor with the defendant in 
the server operating system market.
    In recognition of the strength and power of KDE as a desktop 
environment, an ever-growing body of companies and governments have 
started the switch to KDE, including the Korean government, which is 
migrating 120,000 office workers to KDE from Windows, and other 
companies and governments are seriously contemplating the switch, 
including the government of Germany. Due to its maturity, low cost, 
features and active developer community, as well as due to the 
freedoms KDE grants its users, KDE constitutes the most viable 
competitor to Microsoft Windows in the desktop operating system 
market and the strongest factor in the expansion of UNIX-based 
operating systems in the server market.
    The defendant has now clearly observed that in fact KDE is ready 
and able to expand the role of Open Source as well as proprietary 
UNIXes on the office, school and home desktop, as well as on TV 
settop boxes, webpads, handheld- devices and other computing 
platforms.
    The KDE League strongly feels that the proposed settlement does 
not adequately protect KDE from the defendant's monopoly power, and 
hence leaves the defendant free to attempt to crush its strongest 
potential competitor in an anticompetitive manner. In fact, we 
anticipate that if the Proposal is approved, the defendant may feel 
even less tethered than it has during the course of this seven-plus-
year proceeding to use unlawful practices to attempt to derail KDE 
from widespread acceptance. The fact that the government has refused 
my requests for meetings to discuss how the Proposal might be 
reworded to provide some comfort that the defendant will be unable 
to use unlawful practices to crushing its strongest competitor adds 
little solace to a weakly-worded document.
    At this juncture I would like to disclose that, from the time of 
commencement of this case until approximately June 1999, I was 
employed as an attorney by counsel for the defendant in this matter. 
However, I was exclusively involved in representing other clients in 
unrelated matters. I never performed any legal services for the 
defendant, nor was ! ever exposed to any non-public information 
about the defendant, whether relating to this litigation or 
otherwise.
    I would also like to point out that the views and opinions in 
this memorandum express the views of the KDE League, and may not 
necessarily express the views of its members.
    Best regards,
    Andreas Pour
    Chairman
    KDE League, Inc.
    Introduction
    The KDE League opposes the above-referenced proposed final 
judgment (the ``Proposal''). Specifically, the Proposal 
lacks adequate enforcement provisions, is too limited in scope, and 
fails to address issues of restitution. Our objections will focus on 
the specific problems faced by an Open Source project such as KDE/
Linux, though many will apply more broadly as well.
    In conducting its review, the Court should bear in mind the 
applicable provisions of 15 U.S.C. Sec. 16(e):
    (e) Public interest determination
    Before entering any consent judgment proposed by the United 
States under this section, the court shall determine that the entry 
of such judgment is in the public interest. For the purpose of such 
determination, the court may consider--;
    (1) the competitive impact of such judgment, including 
termination of alleged violations, provisions for enforcement and 
modification, duration or relief sought, anticipated effects of 
alternative remedies

[[Page 28435]]

actually considered, and any other considerations bearing upon the 
adequacy of such judgment;
    (2) the impact of entry of such judgment upon the public 
generally and individuals alleging specific injury from the 
violations set forth in the complaint including consideration of the 
public benefit, if any, to be derived from a determination of the 
issues at trial.
    As the Supreme Court wrote in U.S. v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 
563 (1966): We start from the premise that adequate relief in a 
monopolization case should put an end to the combination and deprive 
the defendants of any of the benefits of the illegal conduct, and 
break up or render impotent the monopoly power found to be in 
violation of the Act. That is the teaching of our cases, notably 
Schine Theatres v. United States, 334 U.S. 110, 128 -129.
    As a result of its limited, if not negligible, scope, the 
absence of any enforcement provisions for private litigants who have 
shouldered the expense of the trial already and who have been 
financially injured by the defendant, and the absence of any 
restitution to the victims of the defendants'' unlawful 
conduct, the Proposal is at best palpably without, if not directly 
against, the public interest. As has been said by industry analyst 
Robert X. Cringely, ``If this deal goes through as it is 
written, Microsoft will emerge from the case not just unscathed, but 
stronger than before''.
    Unenforceable.
    The Proposal makes enforcement of its minimal restrictions by 
parties actually harmed by the defendant's violation of its 
provisions practically impossible. In particular, should the 
defendant use unlawful and anti-competitive practices against KDE, 
neither the KDE developers nor the KDE League will be likely to 
obtain redress for such violations. This failure may ultimately deny 
consumers the choice to forgo the use of some or all of 
defendants'' products.
    To ensure private litigants, who, as the courts so far have 
agreed, have been financially injured by the defendant, have a 
remedy for the defendant's unlawful conduct, and so that the 
defendant's competitors, such as KDE, can have the hope to obtain 
justice should the defendant continues its pattern of unlawful 
practices, the Government should require that Microsoft admit to its 
standing as a monopolist and the violations of the Sherman Act 
affirmed by the court of appeals, together with any additional 
violations this Court may find upon remand of, and consistent with, 
the appellate court's order.
    [pour\1\]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\See Robert X. Cringely, He's Not in It for the Profit 
(Dec. 6, 2001, PBS Presents).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed remedies are inadequate for private litigants for 
the following reasons. First, the Final Judgment provides that it 
``does not constitute any admission by any party regarding any 
issue of fact or law''.\2\ The clearest implication of this 
provision is that the defendant is not legally determined to be a 
``monopoly'' in this case for purposes of res judicata or 
collateral estoppel. Microsoft has proven in this case that, for all 
practical resources, it has infinite resources, time, tenacity and 
patience to fight any potential litigants. In fact, recent SEC 
filings indicate that the defendant is sitting on a $36 billion cash 
horde. Even the government, with all its resource, has fought for 
almost seven- and-a-half years, only to end up with a Proposal which 
only the defendant's stockholders could cheer about. How is a free, 
open project like KDE to obtain redress against such a tenacious and 
resourceful opponent?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\See Proposal, Preamble. The Proposal reads in relevant 
part: AND WHEREAS, this Final Judgment does not constitute any 
admission by any party regarding any issue of fact or law; and 
thwart competition in its markets. The Government, having fought its 
battle in what in technological terms is a generation, cannot really 
take seriously its reference to remedies under Section 4 of the 
Clayton Act in Article VI of its Competitive Impact Statement (doc. 
9549).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Though the conclusion was obvious to all judges engaged in this 
matter, both at trial and on appeal, the fact is that virtually no 
private plaintiff will be able to afford to prove that Microsoft is 
a monopoly, a necessary first step in obtaining relief against the 
defendant should it continue to abuse its monopoly position
    Second, the enforcement provisions of the Proposal are weak 
enough to amount to nothing but a ruse. For example, the 
``Technical Committee'' which is charged with the duty to 
``assist in enforcement of and compliance with th[e] 
Final'' Judgment, are (1) picked by MS (though one is picked by 
MS and one by Justice and the third by the first two, in light of 
how this Proposal signals the government'' practical 
abandonment of prosecution of this matter, and in light of the 
defendant's tenacity, it is likely in our opinion that the third 
person will favor the defendant); (2) sworn to secrecy; (3) paid by 
MS; (4) required to work on MS's ``campus''; and (5) 
unable to speak with any MS employee without an MS lawyer present. 
See Proposal, Section IV.B. The Proposal reads in relevant part:
    B. Appointment of a Technical Committee
    1. Within 30 days of entry of this Final Judgment, the parties 
shall create and recommend to the Court for its appointment a three-
person Technical Committee (``TC'') to assist in 
enforcement of and compliance with this Final Judgment.
    2. The TC members shall be experts in software design and 
programming. No TC 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. Without 
limitation to the foregoing, no TC member (absent the agreement of 
both parties):
    a. 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 TC;
    b. shall have been retained as a consulting or testifying expert 
by any person in this action or in any other action adverse to or on 
behalf of Microsoft; or
    c. shall perform any other work for Microsoft or any competitor 
of Microsoft for two years after the expiration of the term of his 
or her service on the TC.
    3. Within 7 days of entry of this Final Judgment, the Plaintiffs 
as a group and Microsoft shall each select one member of the TC, and 
those two members shall then select the third member. The selection 
and approval process shall proceed as follows.
    a. As soon as practicable after submission of this Final 
Judgment to the Court, the Plaintiffs as a group and Microsoft shall 
each identify to the other the individual it proposes to select as 
its designee to the TC. The Plaintiffs and Microsoft shall not 
object to each other's selection on any ground other than failure to 
satisfy the requirements of Section IV.B.2 above. Any such objection 
shall be made within ten business days of the receipt of 
notification of selection.
    b. The Plaintiffs shall apply to the Court for appointment of 
the persons selected by the Plaintiffs and Microsoft pursuant to 
Section IV.B.3.a above. Any objections to the eligibility of a 
selected person that the parties have failed to resolve between 
themselves shall be decided by the Court based solely on the 
requirements stated in Section IV.B.2 above.
    c. As soon as practical after their appointment by the Court, 
the two members of the TC selected by the Plaintiffs and Microsoft 
(the ``Standing Committee Members'') shall identify to the 
Plaintiffs and Microsoft the person that they in turn propose to 
select as the third member of the TC. The Plaintiffs and Microsoft 
shall not object to this selection on any grounds other than failure 
to satisfy the requirements of Section IV.B.2 above. Any such 
objection shall be made within ten business days of the receipt of 
notification of the selection and shall be served on the other party 
as well as on the Standing Committee Members.
    d. The Plaintiffs shall apply to the Court for appointment of 
the person selected by the Standing Committee Members. If the 
Standing Committee Members cannot agree on a third member of the TC, 
the third member shall be appointed by the Court. Any objection by 
Microsoft or the Plaintiffs to the eligibility of the person 
selected by the Standing Committee Members which the parties have 
failed to resolve among themselves shall also be decided by the 
Court based on the requirements stated in Section W.B.2 above.
    4. Each TC member shall serve for an initial term of 30 months. 
At the end of a TC 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 TC member in the same manner as provided for in Section 
IV.B.3.a above. In the case of the third member of the TC, that 
member shall be re-appointed or replaced in the manner provided in 
Section W.B.3.c above.
    5. If the United States determines that a member of the TC has 
failed to act diligently and consistently with the purposes of this 
Final Judgment, or if a member of the TC resigns, or for any other 
reason ceases to serve in his or her capacity as a member of the TC, 
the person or persons that originally selected the TC member shall 
select a

[[Page 28436]]

replacement member in the same manner as provided for in Section 
IV.B.3.
    6. Promptly after appointment of the TC by the Court, the United 
States shall enter into a Technical Committee services agreement 
(``TC Services Agreement'') with each TC member that 
grants the rights, powers and authorities necessary to permit the TC 
to perform its duties under this Final Judgment. Microsoft shall 
indemnify each TC 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 TC'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 TC member. The TC Services 
Agreements shall include the following.
    a. The TC 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.
    b. The TC Services Agreement shall provide that each member of 
the TC shall comply with the limitations provided for in Section 
IV.B.2 above.
    7. Microsoft shall provide the TC with a permanent office, 
telephone, and other office support facilities at Microsoft's 
corporate campus in Redmond, Washington. Microsoft shall also, upon 
reasonable advance notice from the TC, provide the TC with 
reasonable access to available office space, telephone, and other 
office support facilities at any other Microsoft facility identified 
by the TC.
    8. The TC shall have the following powers and duties:
    a. The TC shall have the power and authority to monitor 
Microsoft's compliance with its obligations under this final 
judgment.
    b. The TC may, on reasonable notice to Microsoft:
    i. interview, either informally or on the record, any Microsoft 
personnel, who may have counsel present; any such interview to be 
subject to the reasonable convenience of such personnel and without 
restraint or interference by Microsoft;
    ii. inspect and copy any document in the possession, custody or 
control of Microsoft personnel;
    iii.. obtain reasonable access to any systems or equipment to 
which Microsoft personnel have access;
    iv. obtain access to, and inspect, any physical facility, 
building or other premises to which Microsoft personnel have access; 
and
    v. require Microsoft personnel to provide compilations of 
documents, data and other information, and to submit reports to the 
TC containing such material, in such form as the TC may reasonably 
direct.
    c. The TC shall have access to Microsoft's source code, subject 
to the terms of Microsoft's standard source code Confidentiality 
Agreement, as approved by the Plaintiffs and to be agreed to by the 
TC members pursuant to Section IV.B.9 below, and by any staff or 
consultants who may have access to the source code. The TC may 
study, interrogate and interact with the source code in order to 
perform its functions and duties, including the handling of 
complaints and other inquiries from non-parties.
    d. The TC shall receive complaints from the Compliance Officer, 
third parties or the Plaintiffs and handle them in the manner 
specified in Section IV.D below.
    e. The TC shall report in writing to the Plaintiffs every six 
months until expiration of this Final Judgment the actions it has 
undertaken in performing its duties pursuant to this Final Judgment, 
including the identification of each business practice reviewed and 
any recommendations made by the TC.
    f. Regardless of when reports are due, when the TC has reason to 
believe that there may have been a failure by Microsoft to comply 
with any term of this Final Judgment, the TC shall immediately 
notify the Plaintiffs in writing setting forth the relevant details.
    g. TC members may communicate with non-parties about how their 
complaints or inquiries might be resolved with Microsoft, so long as 
the confidentiality of information obtained from Microsoft is 
maintained.
    h. The TC may hire at the cost and expense of Microsoft, with 
prior notice to Microsoft and subject to approval by the Plaintiffs, 
such staff or consultants (all of whom must meet the qualifications 
of Section IV.B.2) as are reasonably necessary for the TC to carry 
out its duties and responsibilities under this Final Judgment. The 
compensation of any person retained by the TC shall be based on 
reasonable and customary terms commensurate with the individual's 
experience and responsibilities.
    i. The TC shall account for all reasonable expenses incurred, 
including agreed upon fees for the TC members'' services, 
subject to the approval of the Plaintiffs. Microsoft may, on 
application to the Court, object to the reasonableness of any such 
fees or other expenses. On any such application: a) the burden shall 
be on Microsoft to demonstrate unreasonableness; and (b) the TC 
member(s) shall be entitled to recover all costs incurred on such 
application (including reasonable attorneys'' fees and costs), 
regardless of the Court's disposition of such application, unless 
the Court shall expressly find that the TC's opposition to the 
application was without substantial justification.
    9. Each TC member, and any consultants or staff hired by the TC, 
shall sign a confidentiality agreement prohibiting disclosure of any 
information obtained in the course of performing his or her duties 
as a member of the TC or as a person assisting the TC to anyone 
other than Microsoft, the Plaintiffs, or the Court. All information 
gathered by the TC in connection with this Final Judgment and any 
report and recommendations prepared by the TC shall be treated as 
Highly Confidential under the Protective Order in this case, and 
shall not be disclosed to any person other than Microsoft and the 
Plaintiffs except as allowed by the Protective Order entered in the 
Action or by further order of this Court.
    10. No member of the TC shall make any public statements 
relating to the TC's activities.
    Appointment of a Microsoft Internal Compliance Officer
    1. Microsoft shall designate, within 30 days of entry of this 
Final Judgment, an internal Compliance Officer who shall be an 
employee of Microsoft with responsibility for administering 
Microsoft's antitrust compliance program and helping to ensure 
compliance with this Final Judgment.
    2. The Compliance Officer shall supervise the review of 
Microsoft's activities to ensure that they comply with this Final 
Judgment. He or she may be assisted by other employees of Microsoft.
    3. The Compliance Officer shall be responsible for performing 
the following activities:
    a. within 30 days after entry of this Final Judgment, 
distributing a copy of the Final Judgment to all officers and 
directors of Microsoft;
    b. promptly distributing a copy of this Final Judgment to any 
person who succeeds to a position described in Section IV.C.3.a 
above;
    c. ensuring that those persons designated in Section W.C.3.a 
above are annually briefed on the meaning and requirements of this 
Final Judgment and the U.S. antitrust laws and advising them that 
Microsoft's legal advisors are available to confer with them 
regarding any question concerning compliance with this Final 
Judgment or under the U.S. antitrust laws;
    d. obtaining from each person designated in Section IV.C.3.a 
above an annual written certification that he or she: (i) has read 
and agrees to abide by the terms of this Final Judgment; and (ii) 
has been advised and understands that his or her failure to comply 
with this Final Judgment may result in a finding of contempt of 
court;
    e. maintaining a record of all persons to whom a copy of this 
Final Judgment has been distributed and from whom the certification 
described in Section IV.C.3.d above has been obtained;
    f. establishing and maintaining the website provided for in 
Section IV.D.3.b below.
    g. receiving complaints from third parties, the TC and the 
Plaintiffs concerning Microsoft's compliance with this Final 
Judgment and following the appropriate procedures set forth in 
Section IV.D below; and
    h. maintaining a record of all complaints received and action 
taken by Microsoft with respect to each such complaint.
    Voluntary Dispute Resolution
    1. Third parties may submit complaints concerning Microsoft's 
compliance with this Final Judgment to the Plaintiffs, the TC or the 
Compliance Officer.
    2. In order to enhance the ability of the Plaintiffs to enforce 
compliance with this Final Judgment, and to advance the 
parties'' joint interest and the public interest in prompt 
resolution of issues and disputes, the parties have agreed that the 
TC and the Compliance Officer shall have the following additional 
responsibilities.
    3. Submissions to the Compliance Officer.
    a. Third parties, the TC, or the Plaintiffs in their discretion 
may
    Third, making matters worse are the Proposal's ``No Third 
Party Rights''

[[Page 28437]]

provisions.\4\ The absence of third party rights is, in fact, 
explicitly stated twice in the Proposal: first in Section III.I 
(last paragraph) and again in Section VIII). Thus if a private party 
has been harmed by the defendant's violation of the Final Judgment, 
that person's sole recourse is to approach the Justice Department or 
a State to request enforcement of the Proposal. Given the fact that 
the Justice Department has not even responded to the KDE League's 
request for a hearing regarding the settlement, it seems that the 
likelihood that the Justice Department acting on behalf of any Open 
Source project or other small company is marginal at best. In 
addition, many Open Source developers live in other countries, 
making it extremely difficult for them to obtain any redress through 
the courts. (Here it is important to bear in mind that while these 
developers live in other countries, their software is freely 
available to American consumers, and hence submit to the Compliance 
Officer any complaints concerning Microsoft's compliance with this 
Final Judgment. Without in any way limiting its authority to take 
any other action to enforce this Final Judgment, the Plaintiffs may 
submit complaints related to Sections III.C, III.D, III.E and III.H 
to the Compliance Officer whenever doing so would be consistent with 
the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\See Proposal, Section III.I (last paragraph) and 
Section VIII.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. To facilitate the communication of complaints and inquiries 
by third parties, the Compliance Officer shall place on Microsoft's 
Internet website, in a manner acceptable to the Plaintiffs, the 
procedures for submitting complaints. To encourage whenever possible 
the informal resolution of complaints and inquiries, the website 
shall provide a mechanism for communicating complaints and inquiries 
to the Compliance Officer.
    c. Microsoft shall have 30 days after receiving a complaint to 
attempt to resolve it or reject it, and will then promptly advise 
the TC of the nature of the complaint and its disposition.
    4. Submissions to the TC.
    a. The Compliance Officer, third parties or the Plaintiffs in 
their discretion may submit to the TC any complaints concerning 
Microsoft's compliance with this Final Judgment.
    b. The TC shall investigate complaints received and will consult 
with the Plaintiffs regarding its investigation. At least once 
during its investigation, and more often when it may help resolve 
complaints informally, the TC shall meet with the Compliance Officer 
to allow Microsoft to respond to the substance of the complaint and 
to determine whether the complaint can be resolved without further 
proceedings.
    c. If the TC concludes that a complaint is meritorious, it shall 
advise Microsoft and the Plaintiffs of its conclusion and its 
proposal for cure.
    d. No work product, findings or recommendations by the TC may be 
admitted in any enforcement proceeding before the Court for any 
purpose, and no member of the TC shall testify by deposition, in 
court or before any other tribunal regarding any matter related to 
this Final Judgment.
    e. The TC may preserve the anonymity of any third party 
complainant where it deems it appropriate to do so upon the request 
of the Plaintiffs or the third party, or in its discretion. any harm 
visited upon these international developers results in direct harm 
to the American consumers which the Antitrust Laws are designed to 
protect.) This limitation should be particularly borne in mind when 
reading the entire Proposal, such as the supposed 
``abandonment'' of certain trademark rights in Section 
VI.T.
    Fourth, the term of the agreement is extremely short--;only 
five years.\5\ Even if the government proves to the court ``a 
pattern of willful and systematic violations'', the Proposal 
may only be extended once for a maximum of two years.\6\ Thus, given 
the defendant's dilatory legal maneuverings, it is easily possible 
that the defendant can blatantly violate the Proposal from the get-
go and have the Proposal expire before proceedings can adjudge it 
guilty of any violations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\See Proposal, Section V.A.
    \6\See Proposal, Section V.B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of course there is also a ``Voluntary Dispute 
Resolution'' provision, where essentially a victim of the 
defendant's monopoly abuses would have the opportunity to submit a 
grievance through a web form\7\ Insofar as the defendant 
adamantly denies any wrongdoing in the face of a lawsuit by the 
federal government and numerous States, and in the face of every 
judge to have reviewed the matter and disagreed with them, it 
strikes us as extremely unlikely that any aggrieved party would 
obtain resolution using this method. Under the Proposal, the 
defendant then has 30 days to decide, in effect, to ignore the 
request (it is possible the defendant might redress a grievance, of 
course, but since the defendant continues to assert it is not a 
monopoly and not guilty of any wrongdoing, it is totally 
unreasonable for the government to rely on this in its evaluation of 
the Proposal).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\See Proposal, Section IV.D.
    \8\See Proposal, Section W.D(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Alternatively, a complaint may be submitted to the Technical 
Committee, which in turn may review a complaint (it is notable in 
this regard that though the Proposal speaks of ``shall 
investigate'', as there are no third party rights under the 
Proposal, a third party has no remedy in the event the Technical 
Committee fails to take such action).\9\ In the event the Technical 
Committee agrees with the person filing a grievance, that person is 
barred from every presenting any evidence in court about the 
findings of the Technical Committee.\10\ In the final analysis this 
situation probably does not have a great practical effect, as the 
person filing the grievance does not have any rights under the 
Proposal anyway.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\See Proposal, Section W.D(4).
    \10\See Proposal, Section IV.D(4)(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, it does highlight in how many ways the defendant has 
been able to insulate itself from any responsibility for actual 
wrongdoing it engages in, and how the Technical Committee is a 
veritable mirage with respect to any party having a legitimate 
grievance against the defendant. OS Only The restrictions imposed on 
the defendant in the Proposal are inadequate to prevent the 
defendant from further engaging in reasonably predictable unlawful 
behavior. Moreover, the restrictions are inadequate to protect our 
democracy from the overconcentration of power left in the 
defendant's hands. The restrictions of the Proposal have the 
following principal shortcomings:
    First, Microsoft's office, multimedia, Internet and other 
products, although many of which from all appearances each 
constitutes a monopoly onto themselves, are not even addressed by 
the Proposal. Instead, only the ``OS'' is covered. Viewed 
in light of the defendant's .NET strategy for the future, this 
limitation all but renders the Proposal's prohibitions vacuous.
    Although it is a fact proven in this case that the defendant 
used its OS as a basis to abuse its monopoly position and compete 
unfairly, the essence of the violations related to the incorporation 
by the defendant of additional technologies into its 
``OS''. This inclusion repeatedly encompassed items, such 
as a browser or multimedia player that, in reality, do not form part 
of the OS but rather are separate applications as they do not have 
any responsibility for allocating limited resources, such as memory, 
disk space, screen space, etc., among competing applications, but 
rather themselves are applications competing for these limited 
resources).
    Under the Proposal, the OS is, at least to some minimal extent 
(presumably far less than the defendant could have hoped when it 
formulated its current NET strategy), subject to restrictions. 
Accordingly, one can reasonably anticipate that the defendant's new 
strategy will be to extract functionality from the OS. Instead, 
these applications could be provided separately, either as 
``free'' downloads from the Internet (of course if, as may 
be expected, they won't work without the defendant's OS they are not 
``free'') or as network services provided over the 
Internet or a local network, providing a credible justification for 
reclassifying as an application what was before (at least according 
to the defendant) part of the OS.
    Specifically, the defendant has ``bet the company'' on 
its .NET platform. The .NET strategy means any device which has one 
application (for simplicity, something equivalent to Java) can 
access a great multitude of services, whether provided by MS or its 
allies. The OS itself can be restored to what traditionally has been 
considered an OS, to wit, a system for allocating shared resources 
(such as access to memory, disk space, the screen, etc.) amongst 
competing applications, such as multimedia players, browsers, etc., 
rather that artificially defined to include those applications 
itself. Such an approach can be seen with some of the defendant's 
recent home products.
    In other words, the last decade has witnessed MS simply 
``integrating'' applications into the OS to ensure control 
over more applications and expand its OS monopoly (for example, when 
MS integrated its Internet browser into the OS, Netscape's Navigator 
was doomed). With the OS under

[[Page 28438]]

attack and possibly subject to regulation, the defendant has begun 
taking the direct opposite tack, undermining the importance of the 
OS and extracting and separating the core functionality provided by 
its applications. Of course, from the user's perspective, nothing 
will have visibly changed.
    Second, by reserving to the defendant the right to determine 
``in its sole discretion'' the software code which 
comprises a ``Windows Operating System Product'', the 
Proposal grants the defendant the uncurtailed freedom to redefine 
the term ``OS''.\11\ Notably, the definition of 
``Microsoft Middleware Product'' is limited to products 
which are ``in a Windows Operating System Product'')\12\ 
Hence, if the OS is reduced in significance, and the Middleware 
Products are either bundled separately (as a group of add-ons, 
similar to how currently MS Office is an add-on, possibly available 
for free download or use to anyone with a registered MS Operating 
System) or provided as a service via the Internet or some other 
computer network, such products (though essentially the same) would 
not be covered by the Proposal either.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\See Proposal, Section VI.U.
    \12\See Proposal, Section VI.K.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, the minimal restrictions included in the Proposal relate 
to something about which the defendant may reasonably foreseeably no 
longer care. Having abused its monopoly in the desktop to gain a 
monopoly in applications (including certain middleware), the 
defendant can/likely will simply switch to abusing its monopoly in 
applications, and nothing in the Proposal places any restrictions on 
that foreseeable tactic.
    Third, another extremely important inadequacy of the Proposal is 
the complete omission of the defendant's office/productivity 
applications (``Productivity Products''). It seems clear 
that the defendant enjoys a monopoly in at least the office 
productivity market (Word, Excel, Powerpoint, FrontPage, etc.) 
commensurate with (or perhaps even more so) its OS monopoly.
    Thus, for example, the provisions of Section II.E of the 
Proposal, which (to some very limited extent) require the defendant 
to share ``Communication Protocols'' with third parties to 
enable them to interoperate with Windows Operating System Products, 
do not extent to Productivity Products. In particular, the 
definition of ``Communications Protocol'' is limited to 
tasks involving a ``Windows Operating Systems Product'', 
which as noted does not include Productivity Products)\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\See Proposal, Section VI.B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the principal way in which the defendant maintains 
its monopoly in Productivity Applications is through the use of file 
formats which are extremely - if not unnaturally--;difficult for 
competitors to decipher. Without access to the details of such file 
formats (the standards published on the defendant's website are 
totally inadequate), competing developers cannot create adequate 
filters so that their projects can interoperate with the defendant's 
Productivity Products. As the vast majority of the human knowledge 
base has been ``locked'' into these decidedly proprietary 
formats, the absence of an open standard limits consumer choice and 
may even prevents consumers from switching to another operating 
system.
    One obvious manner in which the lack of attention to Productivy 
Products comes into play is in the ``restrictions'' of 
Section III.A. These do not prevent the defendant from retaliating 
against an OEM for the ``protected'' conduct in the 
pricing of such additional software, as well as other popular 
software distributed by the defendant (such as its web server or 
database products). Similarly, the provisions of the Proposal which 
to some limited if not negligible extent require the defendant to 
permit others to learn the defendant's secret protocols do not even 
pretend to extend to the format of its information encryption, 
encoding and other obfuscation. Volumous Exceptions
    What few requirements are imposed on the defendant are largely 
undone by the breadth of the qualifications in III.J of the 
Proposal, particularly subsection 2. Provision (a) thereof 
essentially disqualified all corporations (including the defendant 
itself), as it is impossible not to have a ``history'' of 
violation of intellectual property rights presumably even making an 
unpermitted backup copy would satisfy this broad provision). 
Provision (b) requires demonstration of a ``reasonable 
business'' need (as opposed to reasonable technical need) for a 
``planned or shipping product''. The provision would 
essentially require a competitor to disclose to the defendant its 
non-public, planned products, without any confidentiality, non-
competition or other assurance that the defendant will not use this 
information to benefit itself or harm the supplier. Provision (c) 
entitles the defendant to establish ``reasonable, objective 
standards ... for certifying the authenticity and viability of its 
business'', which standards for some unknown reason the 
defendant is not now able to articulate, leading to a very low 
expectation as to the reasonableness and objectiveness of the 
eventual standards.
    Undoubtedly provisions (b) and (c) are intended to prevent Open 
Source projects, which to date form the sole serious competitor to 
the defendant over its range of products, from claiming any rights 
specified in the Proposal. Generally Open Source developers program 
for the challenge and joy of expression, rather than as part of a 
``viable business''. As Open Source software is free, the 
defendant could quite rightfully argue that the developers do not 
have a ``viable business''. Yet from the perspective of a 
software user, it hardly matters what the developers'' 
motivation is; in fact a user might prefer software that is 
developed under the Open Source model rather than for profit.
    Finally, provision (d) permits the defendant to deny any request 
unless the party making the request in essence submits all its trade 
secrets and intellectual property to a ``third party''. 
Since this ``third party'' (not to be confused with 
``independent party'') is selected in the defendant's sole 
discretion, and since there is no provision assuring the 
confidentiality of any data submitted or that any party reviewing 
the information--;including this ``third 
party''--;itself satisfies the criteria of Section III.J, 
any requester will have to assume that all the submitted information 
will be carefully reviewed by the defendant.
    No Protection to Consumers
    The Proposal also does not provide any protection to consumers. 
While some indirect protection is provided via the limited 
protections afforded to OEMs, large consumers (such as Fortune 1000 
companies) receive no protection. For example, nothing in the 
Proposal appears to prevent the defendant from raising prices on 
software to, for example, General Electric if General Electric 
elects to deploy KDE in its offices. In effect, the defendant is 
free to retaliate freely against large companies, governments, 
universities, and other institutions which elect to employ competing 
products in some but not all of their computer systems. No 
Protection for ISVs/Developers on other Platforms As recognized by 
the trial court, both by the defendant and the plaintiff, Open 
Source clearly represents the most viable competitive threat to 
defendant's monopoly. Nevertheless, the Proposal does not provide 
any means for this competition to compete fairly with the defendant.
    For example, the defendant's obligation to release Documentation 
and APIs under Section III.D does not extend to document formats 
(such as MS Office formats or video/audio ``codecs'' used 
in multimedia applications) or network protocols used by the 
defendant to maintain its monopoly, nor does it prevent the 
defendant from pursuing patents or other exclusive legal rights on 
such formats and protocols solely or substantially for the purpose 
of preventing competition from software vendors/developers on other 
platforms. In addition, as noted above, it is far from clear that 
any of the limited and unenforceable restrictions in the Proposal 
apply to Open Source businesses and developers at all.
    Proposal Language
    Much of the language of the Proposal appears to be drafted to 
permit easy circumvention. This point will be made with a handful of 
examples, although many more can be identified in the Proposal. For 
example, Section III.A uses the term ``known to 
Microsoft'', as opposed to something less stringent (knowledge 
being very difficult to prove), such as leaving out the language 
``it is known to Microsoft that'' altogether or by using 
the substitute phrase ``it is or should be known to or 
suspected by Microsoft that''. In addition, provision III.A.2 
does not provide protection to OEMs who ship Personal Computers that 
boots only into a competing operating system. As another example, 
Section III.C.4 prohibits the defendant from entering into any 
agreement with an OEM which restricts the ability of the user to 
launch another operating system from the boot prompt. However, the 
provision does not restrict the defendant from causing its operating 
system to delete any boot loader which might provide the user a 
choice of which operating system to launch. In fact, the defendant's 
operating systems are well known to so interfere with the operation 
of other operating systems. In addition, the provision fails to 
provide that the defendant is barred from requiring OEMs to install 
a Windows Operating System on all

[[Page 28439]]

its products, which has been the case in the past and which forces 
consumers to pay for a product they either do not want or need and 
makes alternative operating systems unable to compete with the 
defendant on the basis of price.
    The provisions of Section III.E similarly fall short of the goal 
of permitting competition with the defendant. In particular, the 
disclosure of Communication Protocols is limited by Section III.J.1, 
which broadly exempts any information ``which would compromise 
the security of a particular installation or group of 
installations''. While superficially this sounds reasonable, 
the gaping hole is created by reference to ``any portion[] or 
layer[] of Communication Protocols''. Of course, it would be 
difficult to imagine that knowledge of a communication protocol 
layer could compromise security, and hence the addition of such 
language by the defendant would strongly indicate its intention to 
create such layers in order to prevent competitors from 
interoperating with its products. It is worth noting at this 
juncture that all the major authentication, security and encryption 
schemes rely on completely open protocols and that security is 
afforded solely through an unknown key, token or similar access 
control mechanism rather than through any portion of the protocol 
itself. This is true because it is generally considered insecure to 
rely on aspects of a protocol for security or authentication as they 
are quite easy to reverse engineer, i.e. defeat, by anyone not 
concerned with compliance with the law.
    Section III.J.2 requires the defendant to permit competition 
only when a ``Windows Operating System Product'' (which, 
as noted more below, is a definition entirely within the control of 
the defendant) launches a ``Microsoft Middleware Product'' 
(essentially a browser, Java, a media player, a chat client, a mail 
client or a calendar client), but only if (a) the product is opened 
in a ``Top- Level Window'', and b) either (i) all of the 
user interface elements are displayed, or ii) the Trademark of the 
Microsoft Middleware Product is displayed. Thus, if the product is 
not opened in a ``Top-Level Window'', the defendant can 
prevent the consumer from using a competitor's product. Why, might 
one reasonably ask, would whether or not a media player has a 
separate ``move'' and ``resize'' button affect 
whether or not the user should have a choice over the media player? 
In fact, the definition of ``Top-Level Window'' is 
entirely obtuse. Technically, any ``window'' can contain 
``sub-windows''--;even a simple dialog box is composed 
of many sub-windows (e.g., each text item, each checkbox, each text 
edit box, etc. is a ``window''). Since this is a 
requirement, one must assume it means something more. Hence the 
requirement leaves a tremendous amount of wiggle room for the 
defendant.
    Similarly, clause (c) of the definition of ``Top-Level 
Window'' permits ample room for manipulation. The defendant can 
simply ensure that at least the ``user interface 
elements'', as opposed to the actual functioning of the 
program, is not under the control of an ``independent 
process''. It is important to note here that use of the term 
``separate process'' would have been much broader; by 
specifying ``independent process'', the defendant has made 
it trivially easy to make any top- level window not fall within the 
definition of ``Top-Level Window'' simply by starting the 
middleware product as a ``child'' process.
    The second requirement also leaves huge amounts of room for 
avoidance of any requirement to permit users access to competitor 
products. One easy way to circumvent the requirement is to add a 
single user interface element which is available when the product is 
launched from the Start menu, but not when it is launched from the 
Microsoft Middleware Product. This element could be an element 
entirely inconsequential to the operation of the Microsoft 
Middleware Product, such as a trivial status bar, an extra line of 
text somewhere, an extra menu element, an extra toolbar or toolbar 
icon, etc.; in fact it could be a single user interface element 
added solely to the version launched from the ``Start'' 
menu for the purpose of making it different than the one launched 
from the Microsoft Middleware Product (and of course this element 
could be added after the functional and user interface design of the 
product has otherwise been totally completed).
    Of course, it is also trivially easy for the defendant to avoid 
being caught in subsection (ii) of Section III.J.2. In particular, 
the definition of the term ``Trademarked'' specifies that:
    We start from the premise that adequate relief in a 
monopolization case should put an end to the combination and deprive 
the defendants of any of the benefits of the illegal conduct, and 
break up or render impotent the monopoly power found to be in 
violation of the Act. That is the teaching of our cases, notably 
Schine Theatres v. United States, 334 U.S. 110, 128-;129.
    Any product distributed under descriptive or generic terms or a 
name comprised of the Microsoft?? or Windows?? trademarks together 
with descriptive or generic terms shall not be Trademarked as that 
term is used in this Final Judgment. Accordingly, the defendant 
could describe its media player as the ``Microsoft Media 
Player'', or its messenger as the ``Microsoft 
Messenger'', or its calendar as the ``Microsoft 
Calendar'', without being caught in subsection (ii). Obviously, 
no competitor can similarly name its product, so to say such names 
are not Trademarked defies all reason. In any event, the essence of 
the argument is that, if the defendant expends just a little bit of 
effort and (possibly) imagination, Section III.J.2 will not curtail 
the defendant from eliminating user choice as to the Middleware 
Product launched by any Microsoft Operating System Product. 
Similarly, Section III.J.3 does not specify that the user's consent 
be voluntary (e.g., the consent may be provided as part of a larger 
question), that the presentation of the request for the consent be 
non-discriminatory and fair to all products, or that the defendant 
may only request a switch once, so that it cannot prevail over its 
competitors by virtue of sheer harassment (such as popping up a 
dialog every time a Middleware Product is launched or even every 
time a feature of a Middleware Product is used). Even the time 
language in provision b) of that Section is a huge loophole, as it 
is commonplace for OEMs to do the ``initial boot up'' 
before shipping a PC and hence the 14-day period could have largely 
or completely expired by the time a user boots up the PC for the 
first time.
    Another example of loophole language from the definitions 
relates to the term ``ISV''. The term is defined in terms 
of an ``entity'', rather than the traditional 
``person'' or ``person or entity'', thereby 
preventing Open Source developers from falling within the 
protections afforded to ISVs. From a competitive standpoint, there 
is no reason for the government to favor an incorporeal entity over 
a human developer, and accordingly this definition is unreasonable 
and against the public interest. No Restitution or Penalties The 
evidence, upon which the defendant was adjudged guilty of 
essentially felonious conduct, was mainly based on events of the 
mid-late 1990%. Since the commencement of this litigation, the 
defendant's behavior has in the KDE League's opinion become 
substantially more unlawful and egregious, the whole time right 
under the government's nose.
    Under the Proposal, the punishment for conduct which all judges 
to hear evidence have uniformly ruled is unlawful appears to be 
absolutely nothing; even the most generous read of the Proposal 
would have to conclude that at most it aims to prevent the defendant 
from engaging in (some) further unlawful conduct.
    In fact, no restitution or compensation to the corporate, 
developer or consumer victims of its legion abuses is contemplated. 
Not even an injunction against the defendant's recent announcement 
that it will stop providing security patches for older versions of 
its product line (which would be similar to a car manufacturer not 
fixing a serious safety violation and an act which a non-monopolist 
could hardly get away with), forcing everybody to 
``upgrade'' to the much-more- expensive but in many cases 
much-less-desirable Windows XP/2000 series. Apparently, the 
government is quite content that the defendant keep the billions in 
profit it unlawfully bilked from American consumers and businesses.
    Moreover, the government's failure to address the defendant's 
ever-more- egregious conduct provides the public with no confidence 
that the government would act to enforce the ``slap-on-the-
wrist'' restrictions contained in the Proposal. Accordingly, it 
is imperative for the public interest that any settlement provide 
remedies for private litigants to enforce their rights under the 
federal antitrust laws without having to mount a full attack and 
prevail over the defendant on the core issues of monopolization and 
abuse of monopoly power.
    Patent Abuse
    The threat of the defendant using patents to destroy Open Source 
interoperability with the defendant's technologies is a major 
obstacle to consumer choice and a competitive marketplace. The 
defendant is building up a large reservoir of patents, assisted by 
the USPTO's abysmal software patent review strategy. Even a patent 
which might be obviously invalid, for lack of

[[Page 28440]]

novelty or otherwise, would be extremely difficult for an Open 
Source project to overcome, as the defendant has a huge hoard of 
resources to throw at Open Source developers who would in almost all 
cases lack the resources to respond, let alone prevail.
    Just to pick one example of an absurdly broad patent which the 
defendant could use as a sword to maintain its monopoly was recently 
issued. See United States Patent 6,330,670 (Dec. 11, 2001). Claim 1 
of this patent is for: A computerized method for a digital rights 
management operating system comprising: assuming a trusted identity; 
executing a trusted application; loading rights-managed data into 
memory for access by the trusted application; and protecting the 
rights-managed data from access by an untrusted program while the 
trusted application is executing.
    This really is something that must be extremely obvious to even 
a non-computer scientist. It's the equivalent to getting a patent on 
the following ``process'', employed by a security guard at 
a top-secret facility: A method for workplace security comprising: 
assuming a trusted employer; relying on trusted equipment; 
permitting the protected employee onto the premises; and protecting 
the premises from access by an untrusted person while the trusted 
person is working.
    While this sounds like a joke, it is actually more sophisticated 
than this most obvious ``patent'' the defendant has 
obtained. Unfortunately, an Open Source project like KDE would find 
it veritably impossible to have such a patent overturned in court 
should the defendant elect to try to enforce it. Even more 
unfortunately, the Proposal does not place any restrictions or 
circumstances on the defendant--;such as its status as an 
abusive monopolist--; which might assist its competitors fight 
such an attack in a legal forum.
    Conclusion
    In conclusion, the KDE League would like to reiterate its firm 
opposition to the Proposal. The Proposal does nothing to assist a 
great many competitors in competing with the defendant, even in 
markets which the defendant has demonstrably conquered using 
unlawful methods. And it does nothing to prevent the defendant from 
unlawfully abusing its most viable competitors, not even a small leg 
up in pursuing justice in a court of law.



MTC-00028789

From: Brian Gault
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Judge Kollar-Kotally:
    Not that I am aware of all the issues of law involved here, but 
it seems to me that Microsoft is in violation of our country's anti-
trust laws. As a citizen of this country, I urge you to find against 
Microsoft in this case.
    Brian C. Gault
    507 Lindale Drive
    Clinton, MS 39056
    601-;925-;0212



MTC-00028790

From: Michael Foley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    It is my belief that the antitrust suit against Microsoft 
Corporation is the height of government abuse of a great company. It 
is the direct result of requests by Microsoft's competitors and 
their political connections (i.e. Novell and Senator Orin Hatch) to 
level the playing field.
    Microsoft is a great company. I have been using their products 
since the late seventies and I have always received value for my 
money. Sure, some of their software has a few bugs, but it's still 
the best available. Microsoft will work on a product until it is the 
very best available. They created the microcomputer revolution when 
they introduced Windows 3.0 in the early 90?s. The interface was 
easy to use and understand, and helped computers to become common 
fixtures in American homes and small businesses.
    Microsoft increased the size of the American economic pie for 
all of us. Bill Clinton didn't create the robust economy of the 
1990's, Microsoft, Intel, Cisco, and other aggressive and innovative 
companies did. How does the American judicial system repay the 
genius and hard work provided by Microsoft over the last 25 or so 
years. It attempts to break-up one of the most successful companies 
in American history.
    Who was damaged other than Microsoft? Did any consumers complain 
about the products they purchased? Why were the states allowed to 
join the suite--;---; just how were the states damaged. It 
all appears to be one big illegal feeding frenzy similar to the 
tobacco suits. It is shameful.
    I strongly believe that this suite against Microsoft ignited the 
collapse of tech markets in late 1999 and 2000 which sucked billions 
of dollars of wealth out of the American economy. I think the 
Clinton Justice Department and Judge P. Jackson should be fined and/
or jailed over this extreme abuse of judicial power.
    This judgment was bought and paid for by Microsoft's 
competitors!
    Very truly yours,
    Michael E. Foley
    2320 State Route 73 West
    Wilmington, Ohio 45177



MTC-00028791

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:38pm
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,
    Sharon Rondeau
    388 Spring Street
    Manchester, CT 06040-;6738



MTC-00028792

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
CC: 
[email protected]@inetgw
    This letter is intended as public comment, as provided for by 
the Tunney Act, on the proposed settlement in United States vs. 
Microsoft. The proposed settlement should not be accepted for the 
following reasons:
    --;The proposed settlement does not provide an adequate 
remedy for Microsoft's abuses of its monopoly position.
    --;Rather than increasing competition, the proposed 
settlement appears to be specifically tailored to discourage certain 
kinds of competition against Microsoft
    --;The proposed settlement fails to redress the harm done by 
Microsoft's illegal abuses of its monopoly position.
    --;The proposed settlement is likely to strengthen 
Microsoft's position in the marketplace, thereby worsening the 
situation for consumers caused by a lack of competition.
    --;The proposed settlement encourages Microsoft to use its 
monopoly position in the desktop market to obtain monopolies or 
drastically increase its market share in other markets.
    1. The proposed settlement does not provide an adequate remedy 
for Microsoft's abuses of its monopoly position.
    The proposed settlement specifies several prohibitions and 
limitations on Microsoft's future behavior. However for the most 
part these limitations are narrowly tailored to provide remedies for 
specific features of the Government's complaint of May 1998. Market 
conditions have changed drastically since that time, due in large 
part to illegal anticompetitive practices by Microsoft.. There are 
no longer any credible competitors to Microsoft in the market for 
desktop operating systems for Intel-compatible personal computers. 
Microsoft's Internet Explorer has largely succeeded in displacing 
Netscape's web browser and other web browsers. And while Java has 
proven to be a very useful programming language in many respects, 
Java's run-time environment has not become a ``virtual 
operating system'' which could support the same applications on 
a variety of computing platforms, and which could thereby threaten 
its monopoly on the desktop. These developments were significantly 
furthered by Microsoft's anticompetitive actions both before and 
after the government's complaint was filed.
    Conditions in these markets change so quickly that the problems 
caused by Microsoft's monopoly simply cannot be

[[Page 28441]]

addressed after-the-fact, or by specific prohibitions on Microsoft's 
future behavior that are narrowly tailored to constrain its previous 
behavior. Furthermore, previous settlements of this type have proven 
to be ineffective at curbing Microsoft's abusive practices.
    2. Rather than increasing competition, the proposed settlement 
appears to be specifically tailored to discourage certain kinds of 
competition against Microsoft
    The proposed settlement is also inadequate because it appears to 
be specifically tailored to discourage certain kinds of 
competition--;in particular, efforts by both commercial and 
noncommercial parties to make alternatives to Microsoft's products 
freely available to the public. For instance:
    --;The settlement prohibits Microsoft from retaliating 
against OEMs for shipping a personal computer which includes both a 
Microsoft operating system and a non-Microsoft operating system, but 
it does not prohibit retaliating against an OEM for shipping a 
personal computer which does not include an operating system, or 
which includes only a competing operating system.
    Computer purchasers who intend to use alternative operating 
systems (which are often superior to Microsoft's products for 
certain purposes as well as being available at no cost) are often 
forced to purchase a copy of a Microsoft operating system, which 
they never use, with each new computer purchase. Microsoft has 
effectively managed to impose a ``tax'' on the sale of 
most new personal computer systems (particularly 
``laptop'' computer systems). The proposed settlement does 
nothing to redress that problem.
    --;The provision of the settlement requiring Microsoft to 
disclose APIs and related documentation, presumably via the 
Microsoft Developer Network (MSDN), allows Microsoft to impose 
nearly arbitrary conditions on the use of that information, to 
prevent potential competitors from using that information to produce 
products that compete with Microsoft operating systems and 
middleware.
    In addition, in the past such documentation as has been provided 
by Microsoft via MSDN has often proven insufficiently detailed to 
allow other parties to write equivalent interfaces.
    Finally, nothing in this proposed settlement prevents Microsoft 
from shipping APIs which provide undocumented features, and 
documenting and using those features at a later time. This would 
make its competitors'' deployed operating system and middleware 
products incompatible with programs written to the latter API 
specification.
    Because of these flaws, this provision is unlikely to be 
effective at furthering competition.
    The provision which requires Microsoft to document 
communications protocols applies to ``client computer[s]'' 
only. Presumably this requires only that Microsoft document the 
``client'' side of such protocols, allowing Microsoft to 
hold more closely the documentation of the ``server'' side 
of a protocol, and allowing Microsoft a competitive advantage over 
providers of servers which communicate with those 
clients--;particularly those using ``open source'' 
server platforms such as Linux which have provided significant 
competition to Microsoft products in the server market.
    The provision which allows Microsoft to use Microsoft middleware 
in preference to a competitor's middleware when the competitor's 
middleware ``fails to implement a reasonable technical 
requirement (e.g. the requirement to be able to host a particular 
ActiveX control)'' effectively gives Microsoft license to 
bypass competitors'' middleware at will, by declaring as part 
of the settlement that addition of any ActiveX control to a 
middleware interface is inherently a reasonable technical 
requirement. For the settlement to be effective, Microsoft cannot be 
allowed to change its programming interfaces at will.
    The requirement to Microsoft to license intellectual property 
rights ``on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms'' that 
are needed to exercise options under the agreement, because of 
presumptions on what is ``reasonable'', effectively allows 
Microsoft to set the bar on access to such information high enough 
to exclude ``open source'' and noncommercial competitors.
    --;Similarly, the provision which allows Microsoft to 
require that the licensee of any of its intellectual property have a 
``reasonable business need'' would likely allow Microsoft 
to exclude noncommercial competitors. The fact that the only 
significant competition to Microsoft in many markets comes from 
noncommercial parties makes a presumed requirement of 
``reasonable business need'' for access to such 
information inherently favorable to Microsoft and unreasonable as 
part of a remedy.
    2. The proposed settlement fails to redress the harm done by 
Microsoft's illegal abuses of its monopoly position.
    Due in large part to Microsoft's illegal anticompetitive 
practices, Microsoft has obtained a monopoly in several markets, 
including desktop operating systems, web browsers, and office 
productivity software. The harm done is a considerably more than to 
limit consumer choice, stifle innovation, and artificially inflate 
prices.
    Microsoft's monopoly has also forced consumers to accept 
operating system and networking software which are dangerously 
insecure and have been compromised on numerous occasions by computer 
viruses. Many of these vulnerabilities are a direct result of 
Microsoft decisions to:
    Disregard Internet standards for the labeling of content 
transmitted over the network, thereby bypassing the requirement for 
security review that was designed into that mechanism. This was done 
in order to allow arbitrary content to be interpreted by 
applications on Microsoft operating systems, and to provide 
Microsoft with an advantage over competitors'' operating 
systems that used other means to label content.
    Provide a means for their document formats to contain executable 
content with the ability to perform any function available to any 
application on the host computer--;including the ability to 
delete and alter arbitrary files and the ability to send network 
traffic impersonating the computer's owner--;in order to give 
Microsoft applications an advantage over competitors'' 
products.
    --;Impose weak means of authenticating users over a network, 
for the sake of backward compatibility with Microsoft products.
    Even if a settlement provided an effective curb on Microsoft's 
future behavior, to be acceptable it would also need to redress the 
considerable harm done by past abuses. Injured parties include not 
only purchasers of Microsoft software (and computers which were 
supplied with Microsoft software) but also the numerous institutions 
who have suffered damage due to such vulnerabilities, and operators 
of public and private Internet networks whose operations have been 
harmed by the traffic generated by viruses transmitted by Microsoft 
software.
    To be effective, a remedy would need to redress these injuries 
without further strengthening Microsoft's position in the market.
    3. The proposed settlement is likely to strengthen Microsoft's 
position in the marketplace, thereby worsening the situation for 
consumers caused by a lack of competition.
    By imposing essentially no penalties on Microsoft and few 
limitations on its behavior, the proposed settlement would signal to 
Microsoft and its competitors that anticompetitive behavior is 
largely ``safe''. The proposed settlement would also 
provide Microsoft with the means to discourage certain kinds of 
competition, particularly ``open source'' or noncommercial 
products, allowing it to further limit consumer choice.
    4. The proposed settlement encourages Microsoft to use its 
monopoly position in the desktop market to obtain monopolies or 
drastically increase its market share in other markets.
    By focusing largely on the desktop or client market, the 
settlement ignores Microsoft's ongoing efforts to leverage its 
existing monopolies to obtain monopolies in other markets. 
Furthermore, because different kinds of computers communicate with 
one another over a network, Microsoft's monopoly on desktop 
operating system software can be a powerful coercive force over 
other markets--;for instance, media players and mechanisms for 
protecting intellectual property transmitted over a network.
    There is no significant difference between the tactics that 
Microsoft used to take over the operating system, web browser, and 
office productivity software markets, and the tactics that Microsoft 
is currently using to attempt to establish control over other 
markets.
    Any remedy which allows Microsoft to use its control over the 
desktop to favor its own solutions in any way cannot be considered 
adequate. For the reasons stated above, I recommend that the Court 
reject the proposed settlement.
    An effective remedy would require
    --;Microsoft to be pro-actively prevented from future abuse,
    Competition to be re-introduced in the markets in which 
Microsoft has a monopoly and which it has shown abusive behavior,
    --;Compensation for injuries caused by Microsoft's 
anticompetitive behavior It is

[[Page 28442]]

difficult to understand how such a remedy could be effected without 
either:
    --;Active government regulation of Microsoft's behavior, and 
in particular affirmative prior approval of all new and revised 
Microsoft products prior to release, and approval of contracts 
between Microsoft and other parties before they become effective, or
    --;Structural reorganization of Microsoft into two or more 
competing entities and without significant financial compensation to 
injured parties.
    Keith Moore



MTC-00028793

From: Steve Bonfoey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    Microsoft has done nothing but benefit consumers. State attorney 
generals pursuing politics-as-usual and Microsoft's competitors have 
used the law to punish a good competitor. Microsoft deserves to win 
this case. If their competitors and the politicians win it will 
forever damage the economy of the United States.
    Steve Bonfoey
    4620 W. Hetherwood
    Peoria, Illinois 61615
    309-;692-;6272



MTC-00028794

From: Dave
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:37pm
Subject: Settlement
    If Microsoft get off with a slap on the wrist as it look like 
they will it proves that money talks and B--;S--;Walks.



MTC-00028795

From: Angela McQuillen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:42pm
file:///C/win/temp/tmp.l.
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft: I have always been proud to be an American, 
not just because this is the place of my birth, but because I have 
always known that this nation was unlike any other in the world. We 
are blessed to be citizens of a country where we have the privilege 
to live life the way we choose. This is the legacy that was left to 
us by our forefathers, and this is what we should pass on to our 
children. I believe the antitrust suit against Microsoft, and other 
cases like it, compromises the very foundation upon which this 
nation was built. If litigation like this is continued, this nation 
will become a shell of its former self, and the glory that is 
America will be nothing but a memory.
    This suit was nothing more than an attempt by the Clinton 
administration to socialize American business. Our forefathers did 
not build a nation on the ideals of Socialism. This nation did not 
become the sole world superpower in a mere 200 years of existence 
because we allowed socialism to thrive in America; rather we are a 
nation built upon and made strong by our capitalist roots and our 
belief in free enterprise. It is the dream of every American to 
exceed the success of their father and grandfather, to go from rags 
to riches with nothing more than hard work, perseverance, and an 
unshakeable belief in America. This suit flies in the face of this 
dream.
    Microsoft is the very embodiment of the American dream. This 
company started in a garage and twenty years later it is one of 
America's greatest corporate assets. This litigation sends the 
message to all future American entrepreneurs that it is okay to 
become successful, but only to a point, because too much success is 
forbidden. I am in favor of the settlement that was reached in this 
case in early November, not because it is a fair settlement, but 
because it will finally bring an end to this protracted litigation.
    The issue in this case is no longer whether Microsoft committed 
antitrust violations. I personally believe that it did. If that were 
the issue, they would have been reprimanded and sent on their way a 
better, more responsible business leader. The issue of this case is 
whether or not we, as Americans, have the right to engage in free 
trade, and whether or not capitalism has a place in the twenty-first 
century. I say that without this right the future of America is 
bleak. This is probably one of the most important decisions that has 
ever faced this nation, and it rests on your shoulders, so you had 
better choose wisely. Thank you for your time and consideration of 
this issue. I trust you will make the right choice.
    Sincerely,
    Angie McQuillen MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print 
your photos: Click Here
    Angie McQuillen



MTC-00028796

From: Tom Wolf
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I want to voice my objections to the announced settlement 
between the US and Microsoft. It seems to be lost on those involved 
on the US side that Microsoft broke a consent decree on browsers to 
get in this mess in the first place. This company has demonstrated 
contempt for honesty and for the American business community, not to 
mention the legal process. In short they cannot be trusted to hold 
up their end of this extremely weak and ineffectual settlement. This 
settlement is bad for consumers and US business in general. The 
settlement is transparently politically motivated and completely 
undermines any credibility the Bush administration had. I urge you 
to reject the settlement and vigorously pursue the just prosecution 
of the case to save countless US businesses and preserve innovation 
in the market.
    Regards, Tom Wolf, President,
    Ascend Public Relations
    206-;903-;1730
    206-;903-;1732 fax
    206-;850-;3095 cell
    866-;903-;1730 toll free
    [email protected]



MTC-00028797

From: Brian Seguin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Lawsuit
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
    I believe that the lawsuit against Microsoft by Joel Klein and 
the Clinton Administration has been a complete waste of time and 
taxpayers money. Microsoft made computing possible for the 
individual and small businesses at a reasonable cost. The consumer 
has benefited from Microsoft products. Attached is my letter to Mr. 
Ashcroft requesting that this lawsuit be settled under the terms 
agreed on between the Department of Justice and Microsoft.
Brian P. Seguin, P.E., P.L.S.
Project Engineer
Reid Middleton Inc.
Phone: (425) 741-;3800
Fax: (425) 741-;3900
[email protected]
3622 99th Street Southeast
Everett, WA 98208
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The antitrust lawsuit brought against Microsoft was unjustified 
and flawed. The dispute in my opinion arose due to 
competitors'' envy for their own lack of innovation and 
creativity. Microsoft has been the leading innovator of technology 
for over a decade. In the 80's when we lagged behind Japan in many 
industries, Microsoft developed a product that streamlined and made 
more effective many of our businesses. The company I worked for is a 
perfect example as it was able to use Microsoft software for its 
businesses.
    The terms of the settlement are harsh and seem to reflect the 
intense lobbying of Microsoft's competitors. Forcing Microsoft to 
give up internal interfaces and protocols, making them agree not to 
retaliate against other vendors, stipulating that they must grant 
computer makers broad new rights to configure Windows so as to make 
it easier for non-Microsoft products to be prompted, the settlement 
also reflects lawmakers and politicians lack of concern for the 
public. This settlement only aims at giving competition an edge they 
did not have and could not attain on their own.
    Even though I think the settlement is unfair, I must support it 
because the alternative of further litigation would be too much for 
our weak economy. I urge your office to take a firm stance against 
the opposition and stop any further disputes.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Brian P. Seguin
    Professional Land Surveyor
    Professional Engineer



MTC-00028798

From: Ernest Paul Webber

[[Page 28443]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    As I see it, you have established as a finding of fact that 
Microsoft has broken the law. Microsoft is quite apparently lacking 
in repentance and assured that it can evade justice. Your 
responsibility is to insure that Microsoft --;cannot--; 
continue to break the law. Microsoft has made it clear that it does 
not understand the crimes it is guilty of, nor does it intend to 
learn how or why it should change its own behavior, other than as a 
response to your judgment, and its desire to avoid substantial pain 
suffered as a result. Please do whatever it takes to stop these 
guys!
    Sincerely,
    Ernest Paul Webber
    1808 Anacortes Ave NE
    Renton, WA 98059



MTC-00028799

From: jjoseph
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Agreement
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    Attached please find my letter in favor of the Microsoft 
Antitrust Agreement.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
John E. Joseph
6618 Manila Road
Goshen, OH 45122-;9403
513-;625-;1745
CC: 
[email protected]@
inetgw
6618 Manila Road
Goshen, OH 45122-;9403
(513) 625-;1745
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
January 26, 2002
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The Tunney Act mandates that there be a 60-day public comment 
period that follows a settlement to an antitrust case when the 
Department of Justice is involved. The final decision on the 
proposed settlement is made after this period of review. I would 
like to go on record as supporting the settlement that was made 
between Microsoft and the Department of Justice.
    I feel that Microsoft is actually being punished for being good 
at what they do. There is no reason why the federal government had 
to get involved in this issue in the first place, but since they 
did, I am glad to see that the dispute has finally been resolved. 
Microsoft actually has to concede more than they would have liked, 
but since the lawsuit is over and the economy needs all the help it 
can get, they agreed to the terms. One of the terms, which seem 
ridiculous, is the disclosure of Windows'' internal interfaces 
and other operating technology that Microsoft worked long and hard 
to develop.
    This seems to violate intellectual property rights.
    I enjoy the fact that my opinion will go on record, and again, I 
support the settlement reached between Microsoft and the Department 
of Justice.
    Sincerely,
    John Joseph



MTC-00028800

From: The Babcock Design Studios
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Honorable Judge Coleen Kollar-Kotelly, In December of 2001 I 
have purchased new computer with Microsoft XP, Home Edition program 
installed. I wanted to upgrade the program to Microsoft XP 
Professional version. There was no upgrade available. I had to 
purchase new Microsoft XP Professional version at full price ($300). 
In above mentioned case I do not consider Microsoft policy either 
competative or fair.
    Sincerely,
    Dushan D. Hrovat --;



MTC-00028801

From: Dr. W. Curtiss Priest
To: Microsoft ATR,W. Curtiss Priest
Date: 1/28/02 5:44pm
Subject: Proposed Microsoft settlement: woefully insufficient
    Dear Justice Department,
    As a software innovator and holder of several software patents, 
I have first hand knowledge of how extremely brutal, unfair and 
bullying Microsoft is to others in the industry. I was involved for 
five years in negotiation, arbitration and potential legal action 
against Microsoft which only caused Microsoft to spend incredible 
resources to deny me and Humanic Systems any just and due 
compensation for our innovative work.
    In my opinion, as President of Humanic Systems, a company that 
was (above) abused by Microsoft regarding our intellectual property 
for significant components of Microsoft Outlook, the proposed remedy 
is extremely inadequate:
    1. It does not provide substantial redress for the prior losses 
caused by MS on others
    2. Secrecy provisions undermind the ability to obtain API 
information and will systematically be used by MS, in my opinion, to 
continue its monopoly stranglehold
    3. There are no structural remedies, and, without those, the 
``fascist'' mindset of Ballmer and Gates will continue to 
dominate the thinking of each and every employee
    4. Microsoft's stated opinions about various forms of open 
software, being a ``cancer'' undermines the ability for 
consumers to get the maximum benefit for the least cost This 
position, alone, demonstrates that they want ``all the 
marbles'' and it is a ``winner take all'' game 
Consider, for example, a PBS documentary about extreme competition 
as taught within the Gates family as Mr. Gates grew up This person 
does not know the word cooperation, and, without extremely directive 
measures, will never show cooperation to the rest of the software 
industry that is slowly dying under his ruthless hand.
    Very truly yours,
    Dr. W. Curtiss Priest
    President, Humanic Systems
    Director, Center for Information, Technology & Society
    Member, American Economics Association
    Prior, Principal Research Associate, MIT
    Author,_Technological Innovation for a Dynamic 
Economy_,1980 (Pergamon Press)
    _Risks, Concerns and Social Legislation_,1988 
(Westview Press)
    W. Curtiss Priest, Director, CITS
    Center for Information, Technology & Society
    466 Pleasant St., Melrose, MA 02176
    Voice: 617-;662-;4044 [email protected]
    Fax: 617-;662-;6882 WWW: http://www.eff.org/pub/
Groups/CITS



MTC-00028802

From: Chuck Peper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a professional software developer, I find the governments 
proposed settlement with MS a joke. MS was clearly found to be a 
monopoly and anti competitive but the government has essentially 
taken no punitive action. What is even more disquieting is MS 
continues its illegal activity on a daily basis. It's new products 
and development languages (.Net) are anti competitive to other 
database manufacturers. They are using the same tactics over and 
over.
    Splitting MS into OS and application companies is the only 
solution.



MTC-00028803

From: Michael Sharp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please find attached my comments with regards to the Microsoft 
Settlement
    <>

    Regards
    Michael Sharp
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The purpose of this letter is to express my support of the 
Microsoft settlement in the federal antitrust case. As a Microsoft 
supporter, I have followed the case against Microsoft with much 
interest. I do not believe that the federal case is justified in the 
first place, yet I welcome any resolution that the enactment of this 
settlement will bring. Thus, I urge the Department of Justice to 
enact the settlement at the end of January.
    In addition, the concessions made by Microsoft through this 
mediation process are extensive. Microsoft will now license Windows 
at the same rate to all computer makers, disclose the internal 
protocols of Windows to competitors, and redesign Windows XP to 
provide for easy replacement of parts of it by competing software. 
Enough is enough. I do not believe that Microsoft could do much more 
in this dispute, and has been punished enough through the 
concessions it has already made.
    Please enact the settlement reached in November and end this 
issue once and for all.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Sharp

[[Page 28444]]



MTC-00028803_0002



MTC-00028804

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel the Court should approve the proposed settllement in the 
Microsoft antitrust case. I think the complaints against Microsoft 
have been more than adequately addressed by the proposed settlement 
agreement and I support the recent efforts to bring this case to a 
rapid conclusion. Thank you for your attention to this important 
matter. Larry Neustadt



MTC-00028806

From: Damon Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html
    This sums it up quite nicely. Please release humanity from the 
stifling monarchy that Microsoft has created. ``Freedom to 
Innovate''? Not quite, Bill; ``Freedom to desecrate'' 
is closer to the truth, but still not quite there.
    The effect Microsoft has had on the computer industry is 
disgusting. Bill Gates and his money have systematically destroyed 
everything the industry stood for, and all of the individuals on 
whose shoulders it stands. Bush sold millions of peoples'' 
ideals right down the river on this one, and something needs to be 
done. Please be strong enough to stand up to Microsoft, finally 
ending their blatant laughter in the face of human liberties 
everywhere. Too dramatic, you say? Think again. Take a look at what 
this company has truly done TO humanity, and ask yourself if that 
statement is untrue.
    Sincerely,
    Damon Miller
    (An individual trying to breathe under Microsoft's despotic 
tyranny)



MTC-00028807

From: Bill Humke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I urge you to settle this case on what is now before the Court. 
Too much time and money have been spent upon this case to date. 
Let's get it behind us so this Company can get onto productive 
activates, and thus produce profits and positive cash flows so that 
additional technical developments and innovations can be advanced. 
This will then aid all of us in increasing our productivity, thus 
producing additional profits upon which we will have to pay 
additional taxes--;again help all.
    Respectfully,
    Bill Humke
    [email protected]



MTC-00028808

From: Ann smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:49pm
Subject: Fw: microsoft settlement
--;--;--;--;- Forwarded message 
--;--;--;--;--;
From: Ann smith 
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 16:29:19 -0500
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Message-ID: <20020128.162921.-
[email protected]> states sueing 
microsoft as well as aol using netscape to get money from microsoft 
thru the courts is wrong. microsoft is being bullied by the 
goverment and stockholders have lost money because of this court 
action. it also does not let microsoft give all the attention it 
needs to fight the hackers and make the internet safe for all users 
including aol.
    The reason we are so interested in Microsoft Programs is that 
children all over the world are benefiting by Microsoft 
products,games and all sorts of programs as an educational tool. I'm 
so pleased when I see my 4 year old granddaughter open the computer 
and do what she wants to do. She spends hours doing games and 
playing her videos, instead of watching T.V all the time. We have 
eight babies we encourage to learn all they can by buying programs 
for them at Birthdays and just for fun.
    We the elderly have fun also and we invest money into the future 
of Microsoft and other companies for the future.
    CC:[email protected]/
renatahesse@inetgw



MTC-00028809

From: Robert Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:50pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Please see the attached letter.
    Thank you!
    Robert R. Smith
    Smith-Krenning Enterprises, LLC
    [email protected]
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00028810

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
Fax: 1-;202-;307-;1454 or 
1-;202-;616-;9937
Email: [email protected]
    It is time to close the doors on the Microsoft antitrust case. 
We (USA) must think of the globe market place. Microsoft produces 
products that all sold worldwide. We should let Microsoft get back 
100% to their real business. I think we should allow the company to 
go back and work 100% of their time and money on producing new and 
improved products.
    Mary Ann Dieckman
    P.O. Box 210113
    Auke Bay, AK 99821
    Occupation Transportation Planner,



MTC-00028811

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I oppose the Microsoft settlement. It is bad for the computing 
profession and bad for long term economic development. I have been a 
software professional since 1973, and in my personal experience the 
dominance of Microsoft has had a negative impact on quality and 
innovation in the software industry. The settlement does not address 
the practices that have kept Microsoft in power. A continuation of 
the Microsoft monopoly will only reduce the growth and future 
utility of the software industry, and keep the general public from 
reaping the rewards of continued innovation in this relatively young 
field.
    Mitch Wade



MTC-00028812

From: Alyne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
CC:
January 28,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania A venue, NW Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Over the past three years I have watched the Department of 
Justices'' aggressive attack on Microsoft. I am so pleased to 
see that this unwarranted and unsubstantiated antitrust assault on 
Microsoft coming to close, provided that the government has the 
foresight to see the beneficial impact from Microsoft's settlement.
    The settlement allows for new Windows configurations, giving 
computer makes and developers greater flexibility in offering non-
Microsoft software programs. This will provide consumers with the 
option to remove and/or reconfigure any part of Windows. This gives 
the consumer the decision of what they like to use, and don't want 
to keep. Consumers drive the markets; they decide what it is that 
makes a company fail or succeed.
    Microsoft has successfully proven, time after time, by creating 
and updating their innovative products, where nothing else compares. 
This settlement is the right thing to do, for Microsoft, the public 
interest, the tech industry, the economy, and all of which is vested 
in consumer purchasing. Keeping Microsoft out of more entangled 
legal matters, will definitively promote more responsible business 
decisions from Microsoft right down the line to the customer. Please 
don't continue this absurd mess of litigious behavior with 
Microsoft. It is a waste of time and does not serve the best 
interest of the public good.



MTC-00028813

From: harry emlet
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Department of Justice should hold to the revised proposed 
Final Judgment to which Microsoft has tentatively agreed and reject 
the requests for other and further remedies requested by the states 
continuing to oppose the judgment.
    I am dismayed at the persistence intemperate misrepresentations 
by those

[[Page 28445]]

several key industry leaders who so ardently seek to diminish the 
dominant role of Microsoft and if possible replace it. They piously 
attribute their efforts to their interest in the welfare of the 
consumer, when in fact it is the average consumer, individual and 
corporate, who would suffer most should Microsoft be greatly 
diminished or (in the inevitably lengthy interim) should Microsoft 
be eventually replaced. They also claim that Microsoft makes it more 
difficult for entrepreneurs to develop and market innovative 
products when in fact the opposite is true and their real problem is 
that they seek the dominance that Microsoft now has and cannot keep 
up with the innovative pace of Microsoft's continuing evolution of 
its products. The challengers make these representations directly 
and through the Attorney Generals of selected states.
    The claim of harm to Netscape, for example, is particularly 
false. Netscape deliberately configured its browser so that when it 
was used within Windows as part of non-Microsoft application 
software it would immediately take over all web browser functions. 
(I personally was so irritated by repeatedly having to counter this 
latter tactic that I finally gave up in disgust and removed Netscape 
from my system along with the application that required it.) The 
position of those pretending that Microsoft was the culprit in the 
demise of Netscape blissfully ignores both the technological 
character of the industry, the needs of the average individual and 
corporate user, and the specific technical issues that are relevant 
to the case and the remedy.
    If the continued challenges to Microsoft prevail it will 
seriously harm the consumer, will undermine the lead role which the 
United States now holds throughout the world as a result of the 
proliferation of Microsoft products worldwide, and will thereby 
decrease the present ease of communication internationally made 
possible by the software commonality that is a direct result of the 
widespread proliferation of Microsoft products. The mantra that 
increased competition at any cost is always better in the long run 
is a na/win/temp/tmp.
    To US Federal District Court and US DO J,
    I am writing to express my support of the settlement reached by 
Microsoft and the DOJ. I believe that the settlement will allow all 
of the parties involved to move on to more productive endeavors. 
Microsoft has been incredibly successful because it has created 
products that consumers and businesses find useful. Arguably many 
Microsoft's competitors that decry its behavior would not even exist 
today had it not been for Microsoft's tireless efforts on behalf of 
the personal computing industry.
    Fil Alleva
    Stockholder and Employee of Microsoft
    Redmond, Washington.



MTC-00028822

From: kayandmitch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:59pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    As a retired citizen of Washington state, I encourage you to 
accept the proposed settlement in the anti-trust case involving 
Microsoft. I am neither an employee nor a stockholder in this firm.
    This settlement is appropriate and reflects a triumph of the 
rule of law. Many critics, all with an axe to grind, i.e. 
competitors and state attorneys-general, call for extreme, stringent 
restrictions that are totally inappropriate.
    These objections ignore the decision of the Appeals Court that 
reversed much of Judge Jackson's original findings. Objectors not 
only misstate facts, but deliberately misinter-pret the Appeals 
Courts'' key findings.
    In my view there can be no valid objection to this settlement 
since every major finding of the Appeals Court is stringently 
addressed with a targeted remedy that specifically prohibits and 
prevents the conduct in question.
    Acceptance of the proposed settlement will send a signal to 
American industry managements and all thinking citizens that the 
rule of law is still being enforced appropriately. Any- -thing 
beyond this settlement would be a victory for those who seek damage 
and destruction rather than a remedy;. for competitors, litigation 
rather than innovative, honest competition.
    Every person with the most rudimentary understanding of free 
markets wants the law to protect the markets'' smooth 
functioning. Can we depend on the fair application of the laws that 
all participants in the U.S. economy rely on ? I hope your answer is 
a resounding ``yes''.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Harold G. Mitchell
    1800 Skyline Way
    Anacortes, WA 98221



MTC-00028823

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:00pm
Subject: Microsoft
325 North Broadway
Wind Gap, PA 18091-;1214
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I am writing you let you know that I am a staunch supporter of 
Microsoft and I believe that the current lawsuit against the company 
instigated by the federal government is wrong and perhaps even 
counter-productive. Nevertheless, after three long, long years of 
legal wrestling, the settlement reached in November should provide 
the opportunity to put an end to this issue once and for all. For 
that reason I urge that you work towards implementing this 
settlement as soon as possible.
    Under this settlement, Microsoft has agreed to design future 
versions of the Windows operating system to provide a mechanism for 
users, computer manufacturers and software developers to promote 
non-Microsoft software applications. Additionally source codes and 
interfaces internal to the Windows operating system and its products 
will be freely available to Microsoft's competitors. This is only 
the tip of the iceberg. As such, this settlement should more than 
satisfy the Department of Justice, as well as competing companies.
    It is time that we concentrate on more important matters facing 
America. I ask that you work towards putting the November settlement 
into action as soon as possible and without any more litigation. 
Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Dennis Cassidy
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00028824

From: Mick McQuaid
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:00pm
Subject: Public Comment on Microsoft Settlement
    I am a university-based research scientist developing software 
to reduce information overload. My sponsors include the US Army 
Research Lab, which hopes my software will reduce information 
overload for tactical commanders in battle, and the Ford 
Foundation's Community Development Program, which hopes my software 
will do the same for overworked, underpaid community development 
workers.
    In my research, I am a consumer of computer hardware and 
software, as are my sponsors, their customers, and the students who 
work in my lab. In my view, we are all harmed by Microsoft's 
monopoly, and this harm is not addressed by the proposed settlement.
    As a public university, and with government agencies and 
charitable community foundations as our sponsors, we are acutely 
aware of the need to save money. One way we believe we could 
accomplish this is by using free operating systems such as Linux or 
FreeBSD instead of Windows. We have been stymied in our efforts to 
purchase computers with free operating systems or no operating 
systems.
    We found that purchasing a computer from a vendor, Gateway, with 
no operating system cost just as much as to purchase it with Windows 
and also led to a warranty problem where the computer was not 
warranted to operate with any particular operating system. We were 
warned by our vendor, Gateway, that we should have purchased our 
computer with Windows, then installed a free operating system to 
coexist with it. For any remedy to be effective, Windows should be 
an extra-cost add-on to a basic Gateway computer that we purchase or 
recommend to the military commanders and community development 
workers who'll use our software.
    A second source of harm to me as a consumer comes from 
Microsoft's secret file formats. The only way my software can reduce 
information overload for military commanders and community 
development workers is if my software can read and write the file 
formats for information with which these workers are inundated. 
Other vendors and researchers publish their file formats. Microsoft 
does not. I can not avoid using Microsoft file formats and must 
spend extra money to try to keep up with changes to them. Through a 
model called ``embrace and extend,'' Microsoft is able to 
use its monopoly position to change file formats such as Rich Text 
Format over time to reduce interoperability among customers and 
competitors. Only a remedy that forces Microsoft to publish file 
formats so that they cease to be a monopoly-strengthening tool can 
provide effective relief for me as a consumer.
    A third source of harm to me as a consumer concerns my ability 
to use the World Wide Web without the requirement that I use 
Microsoft products. I can not browse certain web pages nor conduct 
transactions on certain websites because the authors of a free 
operating system running on my computer do not have access to 
Microsoft networking protocols. Fortunately, not every web site is 
forbidden because I have chosen a free operating system, but more 
sites are denied me every day. Two years ago, I believed that free 
operating systems like Linux were the wave of the future. In the 
past year, I have come to realize that Microsoft is working actively 
to shut down free operating systems by making access to the Internet 
more difficult for those who fail to access using current Microsoft 
products. Only a remedy that forces Microsoft to publicly reveal 
networking protocols such that users of free operating systems have 
a chance to rewrite their software to visit websites and conduct 
transactions.
    To summarize, I have been harmed as a consumer by Microsoft's 
monopoly. The proposed settlement does not offer me any relief from 
that harm and I suggest in this message three requirements that 
would have to be met to provide that relief: (1) make Microsoft 
operating systems an extra-cost add-on to computers, (2) compell 
Microsoft to publish file formats it uses to maintain and extend its 
monopoly to the desktop, and (3) compell Microsoft to publish 
networking standards it uses to maintain and extend its monopoly to 
the Internet.
    I have never written to comment on any such settlement before, 
in part because I never been persuaded of the gravity of such a 
situation. The proposed settlement shocks me as a consumer and I can 
only explain it by taking into account the profound effect

[[Page 28449]]

that recent events have had on the DOJ mindset about what 
constitutes the national interest. Possibly DOJ has become less 
aggressive toward violators during a period of national mourning. 
Now it is time for cooler heads to prevail and to demonstrate to the 
public that our government considers the national interest to 
include what is best for consumers, not merely what is best for 
corporations. --;
    Mick McQuaid, [email protected]
    2721 East Fort Lowell Road
    Tucson, AZ 85716
    520-;975-;5157



MTC-00028825

From: Tommy Goddard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Do you plan on dropping the millions of customers? What do plan 
on doing about the fact that 99% of the government's computers are 
run by MS? Now that AT&T is a government controlled company 
their service sucks. I can see how making MS a government entity 
would create so many issues for consumers and hurt our economy 
worse.. Anything federally regulated and funded sucks. Have you ever 
had a speeding ticket or tried to get a different phone company? MS 
actually provides good support.
    Tommy
    Internet  Developer
    Sportwave, Inc. & Championship Tennistours, Inc.
    ``It's Tennis on the Net!''
    EMail:  
[email protected]



MTC-00028826

From: Keith Kemp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I think the deal that MS has offered is more than fair. Just get 
off their back so that they can continue to be innovators instead of 
being regulated allowing someone else to take their position as the 
leader.
    Keith



MTC-00028827

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:02pm
Subject: Settlement
17311 87th Avenue Court E
Puyallup, WA 98375
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am submitting the following comments for your review as 
regards the Microsoft antitrust lawsuit. I am in favor of seeing 
this case settled. From the lawsuit's inception, I have been 
frustrated by the fact that Microsoft is being punished merely 
because it has produced an outstanding operating system.
    Despite my disagreement with the wisdom behind filing this suit, 
in my opinion, the terms of the settlement agreement are fair. In 
response to the allegation that Microsoft has engaged in unfair 
business practices, Microsoft has agreed to give up many things. 
Microsoft has agreed to disclose portions of its code to their 
competitors. They have also submitted to making it easier for 
consumers to change the configuration of Windows. This will allow 
consumers to run programs made by Microsoft's competitors, while 
using Windows. Additionally, Microsoft has agreed not to take 
retaliatory actions against those who distribute or promote software 
that competes with Windows. Fair competition will be restored as a 
result of the concessions Microsoft has made. Nothing else should be 
required of Microsoft beyond the terms of the settlement agreement.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Linda Rogers
    CC:[email protected]@
inetgw



MTC-00028828

From: kwhite
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The courts are punishing Microsoft, a winner and rewarding the 
losers who have inferior products in my estimation. What is wrong 
with winning? I don't see Be on every desktop and Oracle is so 
expensive and cumbersome that only foolish bureaucracies run this 
software. There are no gains for the general population which this 
lawsuit pretends to ``protect''. Very clearly the courts 
are protecting a very few major corporations and their interests, 
not us little guys. And guess what ? should anyone be 
surprised--;There are several technical references about 
computer systems and software that are grievously incorrect in the 
court documents.
    Since when does any company have to get approval from the courts 
to bring a product to market? Courts have to get out of the market 
place. Let winners win, and losers lose. Get Bin Laden and others 
like him. Get bad guys not a company like Microsoft whom we all 
should be proud of. We should put a statue of Bill Gates right next 
to the Abe Lincoln monument.
    Our future is in our children. Any court settlement (not), if 
there has to be one should benefit our kids.
    Ken White
    [email protected]
    CC:[email protected]@in
etgw



MTC-00028829

From: Jack Burlingame
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    Please register my opposition to the proposed government 
settlement with Microsoft. Despite the fact that I am a Microsoft 
shareholder, I believe the company needs to be restrained in its 
anti-competitive practices.
    The case, in my opinion, goes well beyond the so-called 
``browser wars.'' The list of companies that Microsoft has 
harmed as it incorporates additional functions into its operating 
system software is lengthy. To name just a few: Eudora--;email 
program Adobe--;imaging program Symantec--;utilities 
programs Ipswitch--;FTP program Real Networks--;multimedia 
programs It is reasonable to ask what the ability to edit 
photographs, for example, has to do with a computer operating 
system. The only purpose for including such programs in Windows at 
no charge is to drive competitors out of business. This represents 
classic anti-competitive behavior that must be curtailed.
    Sincerely,
    Jack Burlingame
    28-;B Old County Road
    Hingham MA 02043



MTC-00028830

From: Leonard Shackelford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I support any decision which will allow Microsoft to continue 
business without any government intervention. Please leave Microsoft 
alone!
    Sincerely,
    Leonard Shackelford
    [email protected]



MTC-00028831

From: Gordie (038) Barbara Rydberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlment
    Attorney General John Aahcroft I encourage the United States 
Justice Department to accept the recent anti-trust settlement it 
reached with Microsoft. I'm for anything that will get the matter 
behind us so Microsoft can get back to the business of making good 
software. To open up the market and make it more competitive, 
Microsoft has agreed to grant computer makers the right to change 
Windows so that Microsoft product can be removed and competing, non-
Microsoft produts can be installed. This will allow small developing 
software companies to get their feet in the door and compete on an 
even level. This will also create a competitive environment that 
will encourage all parties to improve their produts and services. 
Microsoft has further agreed to not take any action that could be 
perceived as retaliatory against those computer makers who choose to 
do this, nor will Microsoft retaliate against computer makers who 
develop or ship operating systems that compete with Windows. A 
Technical Coommittee made up of three software experts will be 
overseeing compliance and assisting in any dispute resolution. Based 
on these facts, I encourage you to support this good settlement that 
will benefit Microsoft, competitors, and most iimportantly, 
consumers who buy these products.
    Gordon Rydberg
    318 Nelson Lane
    Lopez Island, Washington 98261.



MTC-00028832

From: Carl Hekkert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:05pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Your Honor,
    As a Silicon Valley resident, I must voice my objection to the 
proposed settlement in

[[Page 28450]]

the Microsoft case. As a beneficiary of years of anti-trust 
violations, Microsoft is now being allowed to retain many billions 
of dollars of illegal profits. Furthermore, this proposed settlement 
does nothing to limit Microsoft's power and ability to continue its 
anti-competitive behavior. I feel we are being sold short by this 
proposed final judgment, and Microsoft emerges as the winner.
    Respectfully,
    Carl Hekkert
    408-;245-;7266



MTC-00028833

From: Nicholas P. Provenzo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please see the attached document for the Center's comments on the 
proposed Microsoft Settlement.
The Center for the Moral Defense of Capitalism
 http://www.moraldefense.com
VOX: (703) 625-;3296
FAX: (815) 327-;8852
THE CENTER FOR THE MORAL DEFENSE OF CAPITALISM
January 28,2002
From: Nicholas Provenzo
Chairman
Center for the Moral Defense of Capitalism
To: Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Re: Microsoft Settlement
    Pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 
U.S.C. 16, the Center for the Moral Defense of 
Capitalism respectfully submits its evaluation of the proposed Final 
Judgment resolving U.S. v. Microsoft Corporation (Civil Action No. 
98-;1232) and State of New York ex. rel Attorney General Eliot 
Spitzer, et al., v. Microsoft Corporation (Civil Action No. 
98-;1233).
    The mission of the Center for the Moral Defense of Capitalism is 
to promote the social welfare of the nation by presenting to the 
public a moral foundation for individualism and economic freedom 
based on a philosophical analysis of humanity and human nature. 
Specifically, we seek to apply Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism 
to the understanding of human action and human relationships.
    As the cornerstone of a free, capitalist system, we argue that 
human life requires thought and effort and that the free market 
springs from the trade of one's thoughts and efforts with others. We 
make the argument that human minds and bodies must be left free of 
coercion, that all human interaction must be voluntary and that the 
initiation of physical force must be banished from human 
relationships. We see a proper government as the agent of its 
citizens, charged with one mission: the use of retaliatory physical 
force in defense against the initiation of physical force.
    Our organization has followed the Microsoft antitrust case from 
its initial filing--;we have opposed the case from the outset, 
seeing it as an abridgement of the freedom of production and trade 
and an interference with the right to acquire and possess property. 
We disagree with the essential factual component of this case that 
Microsoft's integration of its Internet Explorer Web browser with 
its Windows operating system was a coercive act against Microsoft's 
competitors and customers. Instead, we see a company that according 
it its evaluation of the marketplace saw the commercial value of 
product integration and acted accordingly. In exercise of 
Microsoft's right to control its property, the firm set terms for 
the sale of that property that it believed was in its own self-
interest. Microsoft's subsequent commercial success after this 
integration affirms the wisdom of Microsoft's 
actions--;Microsoft's customers themselves chose to reward the 
firm with increased sales and increased market share. Rather than 
serve an impediment to the free market, Microsoft's actions 
personified them.
    The Center for the Moral Defense of Capitalism
    4901 Seminary Rd. Ste. 1320
    Alexandria, VA 22311-;1830
    Office: (703) 625-;3296 Fax: (815) 327-;8852
    E-mail: [email protected]
    Yet, obviously, Microsoft's success has made it into the target 
of the government's wrath via the current antitrust case. Our 
organization closely followed the District Court case, writing 
several published evaluations of the case and its subsequent rulings 
(see Appendix 1 & 2). Our organization also participated in the 
US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit appeals 
proceedings as an amicus curie. Our amicus brief relied on two major 
arguments in opposing the government's case: 1.) that the antitrust 
laws are unconstitutional laws that fail to provide with clear and 
concise guidance necessary to avoid sanctions under the law; and 2.) 
that the antitrust laws are unconstitutional laws because they 
require the government to initiate force against innocent citizens.
    Today, our view of the Microsoft antitrust case and its proposed 
settlement is as follows: While we respect the desire of the parties 
to seek a resolution to this case, particularly that of Microsoft, 
which has had to endure a 3 1/2 year crusade against its property 
rights and its right to conduct its business in a profitable manner, 
we are wary of any settlement that legitimizes any aspect of this 
unjust assault against a successful, innovative business. We 
consider the case against Microsoft to have been defective at every 
level, from the fundamental claim that the entrepreneurial actions 
of a successful business are a threat against others, to the claim 
that a monopoly can exist where there is no legal barrier to 
entering a market, to the claim that the citizens of the United 
States are too ignorant or incompetent to exercise their individual 
power of choice when in the marketplace and therefore require the 
government to make their personal choices for them. We consider it a 
failure that the court saw no distinction between the earned success 
of a business in the free market and the coercive power of a 
government favorite and we consider it a failure that the court did 
not ultimately throw out the case against Microsoft.
    Considering that this case was initial brought not at the 
insistence of individual consumers or with Microsoft's business 
partners, but at the insistence of Microsoft's unsuccessful 
competitors, this entire case reeks of business failures asking the 
government to step in and give them the commercial success they 
could not achieve in the marketplace. Failed businesses must not be 
allowed to set the rules for the markets in which they failed. In 
evaluating the proposed settlement, we find that it specifically 
threatens the right to private property. A key component of the 
proposed remedy is a requirement that Microsoft make its source 
codes available to a government-sanctioned oversight committee, 
which in turn is supposed to ensure these same source codes are made 
available to non-Microsoft ``middleware'' producers, so 
that these companies can create products to compete with Microsoft. 
Since under the proposed judgment, the United States would retain 
the right to determine and enforce the scope to which these source 
codes are to be made available, the final judgment constitutes a de 
facto seizure of private property--;the source codes--;and 
its subsequent conversion to a public good. Such a taking is wholly 
incompatible with the Constitution of the United States. 
Accordingly, we reject the notion that this settlement serves the 
public interest, or that any punishment of Microsoft for its 
business practices will be of benefit to any consumer. Eroding 
Microsoft's property rights serves no one. We hold that no antitrust 
case, including the Microsoft case can withstand rational scrutiny, 
and we ask that no sanction be placed on Microsoft as a result of 
its antitrust conviction.
    Appendix 1:
    Judge Jackson's Findings of Fiction
    By Dr. Edwin A. Locke, Ph.D.
    Senior Policy Analyst
    The Center for the Moral Defense of Capitalism
    Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson has released his ``findings 
of fact'' in the Microsoft antitrust case. While his report did 
contain some correct information--;such as the truism that a 
successful company tries to defeat its rivals--;the central 
claims of his report are blatant falsehoods. Let us examine five of 
these fictions.
    Fiction #1: Microsoft is a ``monopoly.'' There is 
no such thing as a private monopoly. Only the government can 
forcibly prevent competitors from entering a market. Microsoft has 
attained dominance in the software industry, but dominance is not 
monopoly. Market dominance has to be earned through a long struggle, 
by providing better products and better prices than anyone else. 
Dominant companies who falter (as did Xerox, IBM, General Motors and 
Kodak) will find their market share eroded, sometimes very quickly. 
There is no threat from these dominant players so long as their 
competitors are legally permitted to enter the field, invent new 
products, and combine with each other to gain the needed market 
power.
    In a free market, a dominant position can only be sustained by 
continually providing new products and services that are better than 
other firms'' products. Paradoxically, Judge Jackson recognizes 
this fact but

[[Page 28451]]

condemns it. Microsoft's innovation, its continual product upgrades, 
its millions spent on research and development, are cited by 
Jackson, not as evidence that Microsoft has earned its position, but 
only as evidence of a conspiracy to ``stifle'' its 
competitors.
    Fiction #2: Microsoft's ``monopoly power'' allows 
it to ``coerce'' its customers. A private company has no 
power to force consumers to do anything. Did Judge Jackson find that 
Microsoft threatened to beat people up or throw their bodies into 
the East River if they bought the wrong Web browser? Of course not. 
The only ``leverage'' Microsoft has is the leverage it has 
earned by producing a product that people want to buy.
    This economic power, the power of voluntary trade, is 
fundamentally different from political power, the power of the gun. 
Yet Judge Jackson is eager to erase this distinction. Thus, such 
actions as upgrading a product to match the features offered by a 
competitor, distributing a product for free, or negotiating 
favorable terms with business partners--;all of them normal and 
beneficial business practices--;are presented by Judge Jackson 
as if they are a nefarious, mafia- like conspiracy to oppress the 
public.
    Fiction #3: Microsoft harmed consumers. This is certainly 
news to the millions of people worldwide who value Microsoft 
products enough to make the company and its founders rich.
    Most bizarre is Judge Jackson's claim that Microsoft harmed 
consumers by giving away its Web browser, making it unprofitable for 
other firms to sell their browsers. Any sane consumer would be 
delighted to get a product for free rather than paying money for it. 
To speak of receiving free software as a ``harm'' is 
Orwellian doublespeak.
    Fiction #4: Microsoft is a threat to consumers because it 
``could'' raise its prices. Under this criterion, anyone 
could be prosecuted for anything. Do you own a kitchen knife? Then 
you might stab somebody--;so should the government put you in 
jail?
    Microsoft has the right to sell its product for any price it 
chooses--;but anyone familiar with the history of business and 
with Economics 101 knows that market leaders have a selfish interest 
in keeping their prices low. Why? Because they make a lot more money 
by creating a mass market than by creating a product only the rich 
can buy. Henry Ford understood this. So did Bill Gates. Clearly, 
Judge Jackson does not.
    The only basis for his conclusion is the caricature of the 
successful corporation as a vicious ``Robber Baron'' 
which, even if it is not ``exploiting'' consumer now, is 
merely waiting for the opportunity to do so. Fiction #5: 
Blocking Microsoft's ability to compete will foster greater industry 
innovation. A private company, with no power over consumers but the 
power conferred by offering a useful product, is branded by Judge 
Jackson as dangerous. But far-reaching government intervention in 
the software industry, including the massive use of force to shatter 
Microsoft and control its business practices, is presented as an 
attempt to spur innovation. Only those who believe AI Gore invented 
the Internet could take this argument seriously.
    What Judge Jackson really objects to is the fact that Microsoft 
defeated its competitors, i.e., that it was successful. The real 
meaning of his ``findings of fact'' is that the best 
brains must be crippled, so that lesser brains will not have such a 
hard time succeeding. He and the government prosecutors whose 
arguments he is echoing do not want to foster innovation; they want 
to sacrifice the best and the brightest in the name of 
egalitarianism. They want the playing field leveled by coercion so 
that no one can rise to the top.
    What consumers need is an antidote to the fictions peddled by 
Judge Jackson: the recognition that businessmen have a right to 
succeed by trading their products in a free market. Dr. Edwin A. 
Locke is Dean's Professor of Motivation and Leadership at the Robert 
H. Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland and is 
affiliated with UMD's Department of Psychology. An internationally 
renowned behavioral scientist, Locke's work is included in leading 
textbooks and acknowledged in books on the history of management.
    THE CENTER FOR THE MORAL DEFENSE OF CAPITALISM
    Appendix 2:
    Altruism in Action: An Analysis of Judge Jackson's Finding of 
Fact and the Antitrust Assault on Microsoft
    by Adam Mossoff
    Policy Analyst
    The Center for the Moral Defense of Capitalism
    United States District Court Judge Thomas P. Jackson is crystal 
clear in his recent ``findings of fact'': Microsoft is 
marked for destruction. But why does Judge Jackson want to punish 
one of the most successful corporations in American history? Because 
Bill Gates proclaimed that he wanted ``to prove that a 
successful company can renew itself and stay in the forefront'' 
i--;and he proceeded to do just that.
    By the early 90s, Microsoft had gained a dominant position in 
the software industry by creating Windows, the first commercially 
viable graphical operating system that could be used on PCs. But in 
the mid-90s, Gates realized that the Internet represented the next 
step in the ongoing computer revolution; thus, he created a business 
plan to ``stay in the forefront'' of this revolution. In 
so doing, he set into motion the same technological and commercial 
innovation that had led to Microsoft's leading market position in 
the first place.
    Microsoft began by investing a staggering $100 million each year 
in Internet research and development, and in four years the company 
expanded its Internet division from only six people to more than one 
thousand. These investments, in the words of Judge Jackson, paid 
``technological dividends.'' ii (Paragraph 135) Microsoft 
developed a Web browser called Internet Explorer, and ``after 
the arrival of Internet Explorer 4.0 in late 1997, the number of 
reviewers who regarded it as the superior product was roughly equal 
to those who preferred [Netscape's] Navigator.'' (Paragraph 
135)
    But Gates took Microsoft even farther. He integrated Internet 
Explorer into Microsoft's Windows operating system so that it would 
be easier to incorporate the fast-growing Internet into all aspects 
of personal computing. In fact, Judge Jackson partly acknowledges 
the groundbreaking work performed by Microsoft in this regard:
    The inclusion of Internet Explorer with Windows at no separate 
charge increased general familiarity with the Internet and reduced 
the cost to the public of gaining access to it, at least in part 
because it compelled Netscape to stop charging for Navigator. These 
actions thus contributed to improving the quality of Web browsing 
software, lowering its cost, and increasing its availability, 
thereby benefiting consumers. (Paragraph 408) Concurrent with its 
technological innovation, Microsoft put into practice novel business 
services and licensing arrangements. Just one of many examples 
addressed by Judge Jackson is the Internet Explorer Access Kit 
(IEAK), a service that permits an Internet access provider (IAP), 
such as America Online or Earthlink, to accept a license agreement 
on the Web and then download and customize Microsoft's Internet 
software. When Microsoft began offering this service in September, 
1996, it was the first time an Internet access provider could create 
a distinctive identity for its service in as little as a few hours 
by customizing the title bar, icon, start and search pages, and 
``favorites'' in Internet Explorer. The IEAK also made the 
installation process easy for IAPs. With the IEAK, IAPs could avoid 
piecemeal installation of various programs and instead create an 
automated, comprehensive installation package in which all settings 
and options were pre-configured. (Paragraph 249)
    More than 2,500 access providers--;representing more than 
95% of the Internet subscriber market in the US--;used 
Microsoft's IEAK service. (Paragraph 251) Notably, Netscape did not 
create a similar service until nine months after Microsoft 
introduced IEAK, and Netscape charged almost $2,000 for something 
Microsoft offered for free. (Paragraph 250)
    Microsoft blended technological innovation with business acumen 
and thus offered its business partners an integrated package of new 
technology and new business opportunities. In exploiting these 
opportunities, Microsoft often offered ``valuable 
consideration``--;such as special discounts--; to 
companies like Compaq, IBM, and Intel as an incentive to adopt its 
Internet Explorer and other Microsoft technology. In fact, Judge 
Jackson uses the term ``valuable consideration'' eight 
times to describe Microsoft's business agreements with other 
companies--;leaving the honest reader to conclude that 
Microsoft's dealings were not some form of coercion but rather 
value-for-value trades.
    For instance, Microsoft beat Netscape in developing a special 
type of browser that America Online (AOL) required for its Internet 
service. As a result, the two companies entered into several 
agreements in 1996. In exchange for AOL's commitment to use 
Microsoft's Internet software, Microsoft promised to provide AOL 
with unprecedented access to Internet Explorer source code, 
extensive technical assistance, ``free world-wide distribution 
rights to

[[Page 28452]]

Internet Explorer,'' an assurance ``that future versions 
of its Web browsing software would possess the latest available 
Internet-related technology features, capabilities, and 
standards,'' and the placement of an AOL icon in a special 
folder on the Windows desktop. (Paragraph 288)
    This relationship has been advantageous to both parties. Overall 
usage of Internet Explorer has risen dramatically, and as a result 
of this agreement AOL registered almost one million new users in a 
single year--;11% of its total membership--;through its icon 
on the Windows desktop. This fact alone prompted AOL to state in 
1998 that its business arrangement with Microsoft was an 
``important, valued source of new customers for us.'' 
(Paragraph 302) Microsoft's achievements should be held up as a 
model of how to create and maintain a highly productive, innovative 
company. Yet Judge Jackson is unable to view any of these facts in a 
positive light. While Judge Jackson recognizes many of the concrete 
facts that demonstrate Microsoft's productive achievement, he is 
incapable of praising the innovation and business acumen that led to 
Microsoft's success.
    Instead, his descriptions are clouded by slanted, inflammatory 
terms that attribute vicious motives to Gates and his company. When 
Microsoft created new technology to compete with its rivals, Judge 
Jackson describes the company's motivation as ``fear'' and 
``alarm.'' When Microsoft offered incentives to its 
business partners, Judge Jackson decries this as the 
``quashing'' and ``stifling'' of rivals. When 
Microsoft licensed its products only under conditions favorable to 
its long-term success, Judge Jackson describes these actions as 
``threats'' and ``force.'' (Judge Jackson uses 
variations of ``threat'' no fewer than twenty times and of 
``force'' no fewer than sixteen times to describe 
Microsoft's actions.) When Microsoft refused to support its 
competition, Judge Jackson calls this ``punishment.'' When 
Microsoft ingeniously melded technological and business strategies 
to convince consumers that its products were the best, Judge Jackson 
sees the company as ``seizing control'' and trying to 
``capture'' the market.
    Even worse than his slanted terminology are his substantive 
arguments, in which he sets up impossible standards according to 
which no successful business could escape prosecution. For example, 
Judge Jackson writes early in his ruling that:
    It is not possible with the available data to determine with any 
level of confidence whether the price that a profit-maximizing firm 
with monopoly power would charge for Windows 98 comports with the 
price that Microsoft actually charges. Even if it could be 
determined that Microsoft charges less than the profit-maximizing 
monopoly price, though, that would not be probative of a lack of 
monopoly power, for Microsoft could be charging what seems like a 
low short-term price in order to maximize its profits in the future 
for reasons unrelated to underselling any incipient competitors. 
(Paragraph 65) (Emphasis added.)
    Judge Jackson admits that it is not possible to tell whether 
Microsoft is in fact charging a monopoly price. Yet he dismisses 
this lack of evidence as irrelevant because Microsoft could simply 
be using low prices today in order to ``capture'' the 
market and charge exorbitant prices at some future date. In other 
words, Microsoft is a monopolist if it charges prices that are 
deemed ``too high``--;but it is also a monopolist if 
it charges prices that are too low. By virtue of its dominant 
position in the industry--;that is, by virtue of its 
success--;Microsoft is damned if it does and damned if it 
doesn't.
    Judge Jackson's visceral antagonism to business is also revealed 
by his condemnation of Microsoft for winning the browser battle 
against Netscape when ``superior quality was not responsible 
for the dramatic rise [in] Internet Explorer's usage share.'' 
(Paragraph 375) Note the implicit premise in this condemnation: If 
Microsoft hasn't produced a product that is technologically 
superior, then only commerce can explain its success. Jackson is 
repulsed by the notion that successful computer companies require 
both technological savvy and business skills; in his ideal world, 
Silicon Valley would be populated solely by computer scientists with 
nary an ``alarming'' venture capitalist or 
``threatening'' businessman in sight. Judge Jackson's 
praise for innovation, however, might seem to contradict his overall 
attack on successful businesses. Technological innovation is a 
source of business success, is it not? Although Judge Jackson 
recognizes that technological innovation causes businesses to 
succeed, he believes that this innovation has another, more 
legitimate, function. He writes:
    In many cases, one of the early entrants into a new software 
category quickly captures a lion's share of the sales .... What 
eventually displaces the leader is often not competition from 
another product within the same software category, but rather a 
technological advance that renders the boundaries defining the 
category obsolete. These events, in which categories are redefined 
and leaders are superseded in the process, are spoken of as 
``inflection points.'' (Paragraph 59) (Emphasis added.)
    Innovation appeals to Judge Jackson not because it leads to the 
creation of wealth, but rather because it tends to tear down the 
market leader. He argues that the emergence of the Internet in the 
mid-90s was one such ``inflection point.'' (Paragraph 60) 
Thus, the nature of his support for innovation explains his disgust 
with Microsoft's defeat of Netscape: By introducing its browser 
product sooner, Netscape should have replaced Microsoft--;if 
only Microsoft had not engaged in the ``vicious'' 
commercial competition that ensured its continued leadership in the 
computer industry.
    These beliefs ultimately lead Judge Jackson to conclude that 
Microsoft's ``monopoly power'' has ``harmed consumers 
in ways that are immediate and easily discernible.'' (Paragraph 
409) What are these alleged harms? Judge Jackson claims (wrongly) 
that the integration of Windows 98 and Internet Explorer does not 
allow employers to block employees from surfing the Web. He asserts 
that vast ``confusion'' reigns among consumers--;but 
beyond one or two offhand references throughout the ruling, he never 
explains this vague allegation. Moreover, he claims, the integration 
of Windows and Internet Explorer has created slower computers with 
more bugs--;as if computers are slower and less dependable than 
they were two years ago! One might regard such mythical 
``harms'' as the laughable allegations of a 
Luddite--;if they did not come from a judge who wields the 
coercive power of the federal government.
    Regardless of how trivial these alleged harms may be, Judge 
Jackson seems sincerely to believe that Microsoft is acting as a 
vicious monopolist. Why? He answers this question in the last few 
sentences of his ruling: ``Microsoft's past success in hurting 
such companies and stifling innovation ... occur for the sole reason 
that [other companies and their innovations] do not coincide with 
Microsoft's self-interest.'' (Paragraph 412) (Emphasis added.)
    It takes Judge Jackson more than 200 pages, but in the end he 
names the essence of his disgust for Microsoft--;and the essence 
of the antitrust laws. In so doing, Judge Jackson exposes the 
fundamental moral premise dictating his factual distortions, his 
fallacy-ridden arguments, and his illogical conclusions: a hatred 
for any form of self-interest.
    The morality of altruism or self-sacrifice is often presented as 
a form of benevolence, as if it simply means being nice to other 
people. But the actual meaning of this philosophy is a hatred of 
success. Under this morality, anyone who achieves some extraordinary 
wealth or distinction owes it to his fellow men to sacrifice what he 
has earned--;including giving away his whole fortune, as and 
when it is demanded by others. (This is essentially what has been 
demanded of Bill Gates.) But what about those who have not achieved 
anything? They are entitled to welfare programs, private charities, 
protective legislation, and a host of other unearned benefits to be 
paid for by those who have succeeded. In this system, anyone who 
earns success through his own effort is to be punished, while anyone 
who hasn't exerted any effort and hasn't attained any success is to 
be rewarded.
    Far from standing for benevolence or good will, such a moral 
outlook stands for destruction. This code of sacrifice demands an 
assault on a Microsoft or a Bill Gates. By amassing so much money 
and achieving so much success, they must be shirking their duty to 
sacrifice to others. But it does not demand the destruction of the 
Netscapes of the world because, by* virtue of having faltered, they 
are the ``have-nots'' who are entitled to benefit from the 
sacrifice of their more-successful competitors.
    Note that the ultimate standard of this moral outlook is not the 
well-being of the poor, the weak, the downtrodden; has the welfare 
state ever achieved these aims? Instead, the goal is the sacrifice 
of the rich, the strong, and the powerful--;not to achieve any 
positive aim, but simply to punish them because they are rich, 
strong, and powerful.
    The altruist connection to antitrust is evident in the mere fact 
that Judge Jackson could have applied the antitrust laws against 
Microsoft without finding any harm at all. Although the ostensible 
purpose of antitrust

[[Page 28453]]

is to ``protect consumers'' from alleged 
``monopolists,'' court decisions consistently belie this 
fiction. In one of the first cases defining the doctrine of 
antitrust, a large railroad trust defended itself against 
prosecution by arguing that its price-fixing plan resulted in lower 
prices for consumers. Since the stated purpose of the 1890 Sherman 
Antitrust Act was to protect consumers, and since consumers actually 
benefited in this case, the defendant logically concluded that the 
antitrust laws should not apply to its practices. The Supreme Court 
rejected this argument and ruled that the railroad trust was guilty. 
In an illuminating statement, Justice Peckham declared: ``In 
this light it is not material that the price of an article may be 
lowered. It is in the power of the [monopolist] to raise it.'' 
iii
    (Interestingly, Justice Peckham was an ardent conservative who 
was one of the principal advocates of ``freedom of 
contract'' in the 19th century--;just as Judge Jackson was 
a Reagan appointee. This proves once again that conservatives are 
not reliable friends of freedom.) Continuing to apply the underlying 
anti-success principle of antitrust, the Supreme Court ruled in 1968 
that a newspaper company violated the Sherman Antitrust Act when it 
fired a distributor for charging rates above an allowable maximum 
price. The Court found that the newspaper ``would not tolerate 
over-charging'' of its customers, and that it even agreed to 
rehire the distributor if he ``discontinued his pricing 
practice''--;-that is, if he charged lower prices. 
Nonetheless, the Court held that the benefit to consumers was 
irrelevant in finding that the newspaper company acted in 
``conspiracy'' with its other distributors to set 
prices--;thus its actions were ``an illegal restraint of 
trade under Section 1 of the Sherman Act?
    Harm to consumers has nothing to do with the purpose of 
antitrust. The antitrust laws are intended only to punish 
``power``--;but since economic power is earned on the 
free market, this means that the purpose of antitrust is to punish 
successful business practices. Antitrust case law is replete with 
examples of companies being punished, not for any alleged harm, but 
simply for having the acumen to remain successful in their 
industries. A ski resort in Aspen, Colorado, was not only found 
guilty in 1985 of violating the antitrust laws because it 
successfully competed against its only rival; it was also held to a 
``duty under antitrust law to help a competitor.'' v In 
the famous case against ALCOA in 1945, Judge Hand declared that 
``the successful competitor, having been urged to compete, must 
not be turned upon when he wins.''
    But he contradicted himself in the very next paragraph, 
concluding that ALCOA insists that it never excluded competitors; 
but we can think of no more effective exclusion than progressively 
to embrace each new opportunity as it opened, and to face every 
newcomer with new capacity already geared into a great organization, 
having the advantage of experience, trade connections, and the elite 
of personnel. vi
    ALCOA's ability and success, by Hand's reasoning, was the 
deciding factor for finding it guilty of violating the antitrust 
laws.
    Given this legal context, Microsoft was doomed before it even 
set foot in the courtroom. The media, in an anti-Microsoft feeding 
frenzy, often highlighted mistakes made by Microsoft's counsel 
during the lengthy (and ongoing) trial. Yet Microsoft's attorneys 
could have performed flawlessly, and Judge Jackson would still have 
produced the same ruling.
    The reason is that Microsoft is an extremely successful company; 
Gates is a unique combination of technological genius and 
businessman, reminiscent of earlier American giants like Thomas 
Edison. Thus, it was irrelevant how hard Microsoft's attorneys 
worked, or how much intellectual vigor they brought to their legal 
briefs and courtroom arguments. These things were irrelevant because 
no army of lawyers could hide a single, essential fact--;the 
only fact necessary for applying the antitrust laws: Microsoft 
succeeds at what it does.
    The punishment doled out for success is paralysis. Judge Jackson 
makes it clear that Microsoft must not be permitted to capitalize 
upon its well-earned success. Because it has created values, it must 
now relinquish them. Does it matter that Microsoft has earned its 
success by producing a better product, by offering better incentives 
to its business partners, and by providing better service to 
software developers and Internet access providers? No.
    Such facts do not matter to a man who believes that a successful 
company has a moral duty to sacrifice to its lesser rivals--;-
especially when that man has the legal power to coerce the company 
to obey its alleged duty. With every slanted term and with every 
absurd conclusion, Judge Jackson practically screams his unstated 
moral premise: Since Microsoft is a leader in the computer industry, 
it must sacrifice the values it has created because it has created 
them.
    In his ruling, Judge Jackson claims to set out the objective 
facts underlying his impending application of the antitrust laws to 
Microsoft. But the only thing he manages to establish is his own 
animosity towards commercial success. What drives this animosity is 
the underlying moral justification for antitrust: altruism's hatred 
of success.
    The basis for Judge Jackson's ruling is not any 
``monopoly'' allegedly controlled by Microsoft; it is the 
monopoly commanded by the morality of altruism over our culture. 
That monopoly can be seen, unfortunately, in Bill Gates's sanction 
of his own destruction in a comment immediately after the ruling, in 
which he declares that ``because of our success, we understand 
that Microsoft is held to a higher standard, and we accept that 
responsibility.'' vii As long as this moral monopoly remains 
unchallenged, legal doctrines such as antitrust will continue to 
punish successful businesses.
    i Bill Gates, The Road Ahead 64 (1995)
    ii US v. Microsoft, No. 98-;1233 (TPJ) (D.DC Nov. 5, 1999) 
(findings of fact). All references to the findings of fact hereafter 
will refer only to the paragraph number.
    iii United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association, 166 US 
290, 324 (1897), emphasis added.
    iv Albrecht v. Herald Co., 390 US 145, 153 (1968).
    v Olympia Equipment Leasing Co. v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 
797 F.2d 370, 377 (7th Cir. 1986), citing Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen 
Highlands Skiing Corp., 472 US 585 (1985) (holding that a monopolist 
has a duty to help a competitor).
    vi US v. Aluminum Co. of America, 148 F.2d 416, 431 (2d Cir. 
1945).
    vii ``Statement by Bill Gates on the Findings of 
Fact,'' www.microsoft.com/presspass/ofnote/11- 09wsj.asp, 
visited Nov. 11,1999.



MTC-00028834

From: kayandmitch
To: Microsoft 
ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/28/02 6:06pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    As a retired citizen of Washington state, I encourage you to 
accept the proposed settlement in the anti-trust case involving 
Microsoft. I am neither an employee nor a stockholder in this firm.
    This settlement is appropriate and reflects a triumph of the 
rule of law. Many critics, all with an axe to grind, i.e. compeitors 
and state attorneys-general, call for extreme, stringent 
restrictions that are totally inappropriate.
    These objections ignore the decision of the Appeals Court that 
reversed much of Judge Jackson's original findings. Objectors not 
only misstate facts, but deliberately misinterpret the Appeals 
Courts'' key findings.
    In my view there can be no valid objection to this settlement 
since every major finding of the Appeals Court is stringently 
addressed with a targeted remedy that specifically prohibits and 
prevents the conduct in question.
    Acceptance of the proposed settlement will send a signal to 
American industry managements and all thinking citizens that the 
rule of law is still being enforced appropriately. Anything beyond 
this settlement would be a victory for those who seek damage and 
destruction rather than a remedy;. for competitors, litigation 
rather than innovative, honest competition.
    Every person with the most rudimentary understanding of free 
markets wants the law to protect the markets'' smooth 
functioning. Can we depend on the fair application of the laws that 
all participants in the U.S. economy rely on? I hope your answer is 
a resounding ``yes''.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Harold G. Mitchell
    1800 Skyline Way
    Anacortes, WA 98221



MTC-00028835

From: Lisa Kianoff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft.
    Please see the attached word document regarding my support for 
the Microsoft settlement. Please contact me if you have any problem 
reading the document.
    cc: Spencer Bauchus
    Regards,
    Lisa Kianoff, CITP.CPA

[[Page 28454]]

    Top Ten Birmingham Business Women For 2000
    L. Kianoff & Associates, Inc.
    ``Computerized Accounting Solutions'' 1128 22nd Street 
South Birmingham, AL 35205 205-;592-;9990 
205-;592-;9991 fax [email protected] 
www.kianoff.com



MTC-00028835--;0001

L. Kianoff
Associates, Inc.
Computerized Accounting Solutions
January 28, 2002
1128 22nd Street South
Birmingham, AL 35205
205-;592-;9990 * FAX 205-;592-;9991
e-mail: [email protected]
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I cannot help but think that this settlement recently reached 
between the Department of Justice and Microsoft is a good thing. 
Since the court case was as contentious as it was, there was very 
little progress being made.
    The terms of this settlement, however, accomplishes a great deal 
without all the controversy. Most consumers will immediately benefit 
by being able to choose different software combinations without fear 
of compromising their installed operating systems, and most computer 
makers will benefit by being able to offer a wider variety of 
options to their customers.
    All in all, this settlement is a great benefit to all and I am 
writing to express my support for it. Thank you for the hard work 
you put in to reach this settlement, and your continued support.
    Sincerely,
    Lisa Klanoff
    President
    Cc: Representative Spencer Bachus
    L. Kianoff
    Associates, Inc.
    Computerized Accounting Solutions
    1128 22nd Street South
    Birmingham, AL 35205
    205-;592-;9990 * FAX 205-;592-;9991
    e-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00028836

From: Maureen Baskin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I apologize for sending this via email, I've tried several times to 
FAX this to you today from a local office store, but the line has 
been busy each time.
Respectifully,
Maureen J. Baskin
January 24, 2002
    Dear Attorney General John Ashcroft,
    Please consider my request for an immediate approval of the 
pending settlement between Microsoft, the Department of Justice and 
nine states. I worked for Microsoft from 1989 to 1996 in sales. 
Prior to Microsoft I worked for small and large corporations, 
including Bank of America and Dun and Bradstreet. I have never 
worked for a company where the employees were so bright, motivated, 
and empowered. There are so many strengths I would like to share, 
but in the interest of brevity I will highlight Microsoft's 
generosity to employees, customers, community and charities.
    There were less than 5,000 employees working at Microsoft when I 
began work there. Excel had less than 11% of the spreadsheet 
marketplace and Windows was not yet graphical. Through the careful 
design by management, programmers, marketing, usability testing and 
sales people, Microsoft went from a company I had rarely heard 
mentioned from ``84 to ``89 (while teaching PC classes on 
the East Coast) to a household name today.
    I encourage you to settle this case and commend Microsoft for 
going beyond the requirements stated by the Court of Appeals ruling. 
The products Microsoft offers have enriched the lives of so many.
    I remember reading an article about Bill Gates'' Mother one 
time and I've never forgotten it. She was calling for him (perhaps 
it was to dinner), over and over again, but there was no response. 
Finally when she asked what he was doing, he said, ``I'm 
thinking!'' I'm glad he couldn't see the negative in the 
future, for he may have stopped in his tracks before starting 
Microsoft.
    Let us highlight bright companies and businesses that stretch 
their imaginations and build superior products. Microsoft was not 
always such a big company, thousands have worked very hard to bring 
about it's success. They have worked consistently for developers, 
resellers, consumers and corporate customers, to build products 
needed in their world. Please do not allow jealous competitors to 
side track the industry, government and the economy on this matter 
any longer. Thank you for your time and consideration,
    Respectfully,
    Maureen J. Baskin
    502 8th Ave. West, Kirkland, WA 98033
    CC: Maureen Baskin



MTC-00028837

From: Benjamin B. Thomas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Benjamin B. Thomas
1975 Cahaba Valley Road
Indian Springs, AL 35124
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    United States Department of Justice:
    I am writing to oppose the proposed settlement with Microsoft. I 
have read the original complaint of United States and the several 
States, the proposed settlement, the Competitive Impact Statement 
at, in addition to many other sources including the findings of 
fact. I feel that the proposed settlement falls far short of 
rectifying the damage which has been done to myself and other 
consumer by Microsoft through years of abuse of their monopoly, and 
that the enforcement provisions do little to dissuade Microsoft from 
continuing such practices in the future.
    While some of the settlement provisions are a good start, there 
are many loop holes, and several places where it falls short. The 
trial should be allowed to proceed, so that a stronger remedy 
without loop holes, and with stricter enforcement and actual 
punishment for past wrongs can be enacted. I will leave some of the 
other problem topics to others, but wish to address a limited set 
here.
    The stipulated parties who are protected from anti-competitive 
acts are ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs, and OEMs. This list is much too 
exclusive. The general public and especially Open Source software 
developers must also be protected. In the recent past, one of the 
only viable responses to Microsoft's hegemony has been Open Source 
software developers. These people have *donated* millions of hours 
of their time to produce a software platform--;a feat which 
would not have been possible if they were a strictly commercial 
entity in competition with Microsoft. These people must have the 
same access to information as commercial entities, or one of the few 
viable responses to the Microsoft monopoly will be stymied by the 
settlement.
    All of the API, format, and protocol standards which Microsoft 
uses to propagate its monopoly should be opened. Microsoft has 
repeatedly leveraged its monopoly position along with rapidly 
changing or secret formats to lock competitors out of their market. 
Due to the substantial network effects involved in computer 
software, it is very hard to function when using alternative 
software since users will be unable to interact with others as soon 
as Microsoft releases the next revision of a product.
    The central reason that Microsoft has maintained and extended 
its monopoly is not due to the superiority of its product, but 
through ``lock-in.'' Once one's data and software on 
secreted away within the Microsoft platform, it is extremely painful 
to switch to a superior platform. This not only directly hurts 
consumers, but stifles innovation in the computer industry. The 
provisions in the settlement do not do enough to make Microsoft open 
these standards to all parties interested in being compatible and do 
little to dissuade foot-dragging on Microsoft's part. Microsoft's 
APIs, file formats, and protocols should be fully standardized, 
documented, publicly published, and an accessible compatibility 
laboratory formed. This allow other software vendors to compete on a 
more fair playing field. This would be a start, but as others will 
surely describe in other comments, a fair distribution channel, free 
from punishing bundling agreements must be enforced.
    I ask the DOJ to reconsider the decision to settle and to 
continue with the matter at trial. Microsoft has repeatedly show a 
willingness to flout the law. The remedies do not go far enough in 
punishing past illegal behavior or dissuading similar new behavior. 
The proposed mechanism of enforcement does not seem to have teeth, 
and Microsoft will likely attempt to break it soon after enactment. 
There is little deterrent to their doing so.
    Sincerely,
    Benjamin Thomas, Voter

[[Page 28455]]



MTC-00028838

From: John Spear
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:09pm
Subject: For the proposed settlement
    Hi!
    While you may discount this, I would like to state my opinion 
that the proposed settlement in the Microsoft Anti-trust case is 
both a valuable and useful resolution to this court battle that 
continues unwarrantedly.
    While it is unfathomable to me how the United States government, 
along with several State governments can conceive of punishing a 
successful company for being successful, I can see how some of the 
stated actions attributed to Microsoft could be considered 
inappropriate for an open marketplace. I do agree that many of the 
settlement terms implement procedures that Microsoft should have 
(and sometimes did) put into place many years ago. As such, I 
believe this settlement should go through substantially as proposed.
    I also would like to see our court system spend time and money 
on anti-trust issues that have actual, demonstrated customer harm at 
their core, rather than the supposed harm to competitors that 
tripped up in the course of their own business and have failed to 
produce products that customers would continue to use over the 
course of years.
    TTFN
    John Spear



MTC-00028839

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:08pm
Subject: Letter for Microsoft
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    This a copy of my letter to support the efforts of the MA 
Attorney general, Tom Reilly regarding the Microsoft settlement. I 
will be following up with a signed copy via fax.
    Thank you very much,
    Colleen Reilly, MA
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
via email: [email protected]
    Re: The Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to you about the proposed Microsoft settlement as 
both a private consumer as well as a human resources professional. I 
am very concerned as a consumer that I continue to have a choice in 
the software I purchase without having to be concerned with 
interoperability issues.
    As a human resources professional and personal user of 
Microsoft, I want to maintain open computer systems that will 
facilitate communication and training materials.
    Openness is paramount to maintaining competition, but openness 
is not what Microsoft wants. And it is not what this settlement, as 
it is currently written will guarantee.
    I support including additional remedies as proposed by the 
dissenting Attorneys General, including the AG form my own state, 
Tom Reilly (no relation). Those remedies would ensure consumer 
choice, competition and interoperability of software. Specifically, 
I support the following: .
    Microsoft should offer an alternative, basic version of Windows 
to personal computer manufacturers. This alternative version would 
have no Microsoft ``add-ons'', such as Internet access 
software, media players, or email applications, included.
    2. Microsoft should provide the software code for Internet 
Explorer to competing software developers so that Microsoft cannot 
monopolize the Internet access or browser markets.
    3. Microsoft should develop some mechanism to allow competitors 
to produce non-Windows based versions of the Office software suite.
    Sincerely,
    Colleen Reilly



MTC-00028840

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft believes the terms-which have met or gone beyond the 
findings of the Court of Appeals ruling-are reasonable and fair to 
all parties involved. This settlement represents the best 
opportunity for Microsoft and the industry to move forward.
    I ALSO AGREE WITH MICROSOFT
    (This ruling will unnecessarily keep Microsoft from reaching the 
public with improvements for the computer industry)
    Jimmy McCoy
    http://
youens.com/mccoy/



MTC-00028841

From: Elliott Mitchell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement is flawed. It will not foster competition in any 
way. In fact by requiring Microsoft to donate their software to 
schools will have very much the opposite effect, helping the 
Microsoft monopoly to weaken Apple, the sole remaining competitor in 
making Operating Systems.
    I sincerely hope that the settlement will be completly rejected, 
thereby restoring the hope that the rest of the computer industry 
will florish once again.



MTC-00028842

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    1085 Warburton Avenue Apt. 324
    Yonkers, NY 10701
    January 26, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am in support of the settlement proposed in the antitrust case 
between the Department of Justice and Microsoft. The settlement 
offers terms that I feel are beneficial to technology users and 
sufficient enough to end all of this litigation.
    I think that the internal interface disclosure, licensing of 
Windows products, and technical committee in the settlement all open 
the doors for increased competitive behavior. If the government 
alleges that Microsoft was involved with anticompetitive behavior, 
then the problem is rectified.
    We need an end to drawn out legal proceedings. It is time to 
allow Microsoft to get out of court and get back to business. 
Support the antitrust settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Joan Stupler



MTC-00028843

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:11pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I believe that the microsoft settlement is bad for american 
business. I have seen the future of Microsoft operating system 
software in XP and I do not want it. It is horrid to use. I went out 
and got a older version of win 98 to replace it.
    If Microsoft maintains its freedom to abuse its consumers, my 
business will suffer. The only real punishment is to break up the 
company or to require much of the secret stuff in Windows to become 
public so that the market can punish Microsoft for writing bad, 
crash prone, stupidly functioning, software. Under the current 
government proposal, this will not happen.
    Daniel Winter, President
    Brookline Print Center
    370 Boylston Street
    Brookline MA 02445



MTC-00028844

From: Seth Mearig
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:13pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Dear Judge,
    I am not always entirely in favor of heavy-handed government 
influences, but I do believe that Microsoft has gone too far in some 
of its business practices. I do not think the Proposed Final 
Judgement goes far enough to sanction a company that has proved 
itself capable of willfully violating laws and engaging in 
monopolistic practices. Please look again at the PFJ and give 
Americans some freedom in the area of operating systems, web 
browsers, and other software programs. If something is not done to 
check Microsoft now, it may be too late in the future.
    Sincerely,
    Seth Mearig
    3025 Royal Street
    Los Angeles, CA 90007
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw,dkleinkn@yahoo...



MTC-00028845

From: Jana Marie Goodwin (TASCA)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:13pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    As a Microsoft consumer, employee and shareholder, I felt it my 
obligation to write on behalf of Microsoft corporation. Our 
government has spent more time, money and resources fighting 
Microsoft Corporation than Terrorism! And all based upon allegations

[[Page 28456]]

from our competitors and their political supporters. As a tax payer, 
I question this, as being the best use of tax dollars and government 
resources and the best place for efforts to be invested.
    Microsoft has a passion for the customer and it's products and 
technology. I've been proud to represent them as an employee and to 
help our customers succeed and grow their businesses with Microsoft 
technologies and products. I have over the years, continually had 
happy customers who felt Microsoft contributed greatly to their 
success and the growth of the industry and was a true partner in 
their businesses.
    Microsoft is not Big Tobacco, it is not misleading, deceiving or 
intentionally hurting consumers, which makes the allegations and 
continued lawsuits increasingly more difficult to rationalize. Why 
should competitors reap the benefits of this suit?
    If consumers and the general public are being hurt, why won't 
the additional 9 states accept the settlement that proposes to help 
the consumer and benefit and educate the general public and make 
technology accessible and available to those who would not have 
exposure otherwise ?
    What I fear, is that the focus has moved away from what is best 
for consumers, partners, customers and the industry, (not to mention 
our Nation's economy) by the efforts of competitors and competitive 
interests, and is aimed at taking down a ``powerhouse'' or 
``the richest man in the world''. Is this really as 
objective a process as it should be?
    What is good for ``competitors'' may not be what's 
good and healthy for innovation and the industry.
    Punishing successful companies and entrepreneurs, is creating an 
environment that destroys the motivation to innovate and improve and 
invest in new and improved technologies in all facets of our 
economy. The value placed on Intellectual Property can not be 
negotiated away. Will you next have COKE, give PEPSI, their recipe? 
Or throw patents out the window in an effort to level the playing 
field and stifle innovation all together? There is a difference 
between Open standards and giving away intellectual property to 
competitors, then the consumer loses.
    And would our competitors willingly give us their source code 
and intellectual property? If we are leveling the playing field then 
shouldn't everyone comply?
    Based upon the state of our economy, and the recent ENRON 
scandal, I fear Microsoft is headed in the same direction and thus 
not hurting the ``Richest Man in the world'' or this big, 
bad, bully of a company as it is portrayed, but the average American 
worker and investor in Microsoft in any fund or pension plan nation 
wide. My pension and retirement funds have plummeted over the last 2 
years as this lawsuit ensues and continues. I fear I will end up 
like the ENRON employees as I watch my 401 K value fall as a result 
of this lawsuit and the impact it has had on the economy as a whole 
and the entire tech sector. Over the years, Microsoft has committed 
to changing it's business and licensing practices multiple times to 
comply and paid over $600M last quarter relating to the lawsuit. At 
what point can we all resume business and our competitors and 
special interests be silenced?
    Why are other States, not accepting the proposed settlement and 
accepting the terms of the settlement , whatever happened to torte 
reform?
    Can't this battle be fought in the market place and not in the 
court room?
    Thank you,
    Jana Marie Goodwin
    OEM Business Development Manager
    Microsoft Press
    CDDG
    mspress.microsoft.com



MTC-00028846

From: Orpheus Colin Vazquez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The current settlement made by the DOJ, failed to meet the 
changes hoped for by myself, and I'm sure many others. A quick 
settlement was reached, but no real punishment was delivered to the 
company, and it seemed as if the DOJ quickly gave up. Hopefully a 
better agreement can be reached in the future with the last states 
that have kept their claim against mircosoft, and I hope futhermore 
that this case if ever brought before a judge in the future by the 
DOJ, I hope they can further persue their goals in the case, and not 
give up so quickly. Microsoft continues to show practices which 
prevent competition. They continue to dominate areas of markets 
without it seems any hope for future competition with the settlement 
that has been reached. Hopefully something can and will be done 
about this one day.
    Orpheus Vazquez



MTC-00028847

From: Joanna
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    January 27, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am acutely dismayed that our government has decided to insert 
itself into the affairs of private businesses. I do not believe it 
is the responsibility of the government to regulate business. The 
Microsoft antitrust case is just another example of the state 
pandering to petulance. Companies can and should have the ability to 
stand on then own feet. I am disgusted that every time a conflict 
arises in business, it is acceptable to run to the government for 
protection instead of toughening up. This whole suit has been a 
colossal waste of time and money not only on the part of the 
government, but on Microsoft's part as well. They should have been 
putting their resources towards innovation, not litigation. I 
believe the government should back off in this case. There is 
absolutely no need to federalize what is simply the inability of 
companies to take their licks and keep moving in a fiercely 
competitive atmosphere.
    I do not claim that Bill Gates is a saint. He is a tough 
competitor, and I understand how companies can feel daunted by 
Microsoft's prowess in the market. But I believe consumers are able 
to judge for themselves what is good and what is not, and are 
capable of regulating big business through purchase and support of 
products. The government has no fight to take that privilege away 
from consumers. The settlement requires Microsoft to disclose source 
code from its Windows operating system, allowing competitors the 
ability to work within Microsoft's operating system instead of 
having to develop a quality operating system on their own. It also 
requires Microsoft to refrain from retaliation when software is put 
on the market that directly competes with Microsoft software, but 
this just makes companies weaker by reducing the severity of 
competition in the market. Restrictions breed contempt, and contempt 
is not productive. F.A. Harper* wrote, ``Human goodness can 
only grow in a climate of liberty.'' If liberty is removed from 
the technology market, the government cannot expect goodness to 
remain.
    The companies and states who are continuing to pursue litigation 
are opportunists. They are the result of an education system that 
has indoctrinated them to believe that it is acceptable to steal 
from one's neighbor as long as one has the government do it for 
them. They take privileges for granted and claim them as rights. It 
is nothing but political whoring. It is wrong. The litigation needs 
to stop now, before this kind of behavior is reinforced any longer. 
It is a total waste of creative and productive energy--;and of 
the resources that would otherwise support these essential elements 
of a health economy and prosperous society.
    Sincerely,
    Joanna Parker
    F.A. Harper was a revered scholar and founder of the Institute 
of Humane Studies, which still continues at George Mason University 
in Fairfax, Virginia.



MTC-00028848

From: H Pittell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to give my support to Microsoft in the recent 
Department of Justice v. Microsoft antitrust case, and ask that you 
approve this settlement. I have Microsoft products and approve and 
agree with what Mr. Bill Gates has been trying to do--;and has 
succeeded--;in doing so by making softwear available to the 
average person, of which I am one, and at an affordable price. Just 
what is it that he has done that is contrary to law? I have always 
thought that by making a superior product with a reduction in price 
you would be serving the public. Personally, I think it is 
``sour grapes'' on the part of the competitors of 
Microsoft who run crying to the government that what he has 
succeeded in doing, and doing so well, comes under antitrust. Also 
the attorneys-general who have refused to enter into a settielement 
always have been able to appoint ``high powered'' law 
firms to represent their state which, of course, calls for huge 
fees--;not

[[Page 28457]]

fees, as far as I am concerned, but ``pay offs.'' I do not 
know the technicalities of the settlement nor would I be able to 
understand the testimony in the actual trial.
    I am merely an average citizen, with an average education with a 
family to support who is interested in justice for the average 
person and want to pay a fair price for a product which, to me, is 
outstanding.
    What is it that Shakespeare said about lawyers?
    Harold Pittell



MTC-00028849

From: John A. Hossack
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:14pm
Subject: MS Settlement
    [Text body exceeds maximum size of message body (8192 bytes). It 
has been converted to attachment.]
    Microsoft Settlement
    To: Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW
    Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    From: John Hossack
    617 Davis Ave
    Charlottesville
    VA 22901
    I wish to comment on the proposed Microsoft settlement. The 
Court of Appeals affirmed that Microsoft (MS) has a monopoly on 
Intel-compatible PC operating systems, and that the company's market 
position is protected by a substantial barrier to entry, and that 
Microsoft is liable under Sherman Act 2 for illegally maintaining 
its monopoly. 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''.
    Like all those found guilty of a crime, Microsoft need to be 
punished for their actions--;ideally in a way that attempts to 
restore competition and undoes the damage inflicted on the consumer 
by their anticompetitive behaviour. MS has profitted greatly from 
their behaviour, and the fruits of their illegal actions must be 
denied to them.
    Previous court ordered remedies have shown that Microsoft 
willfully ignores and attempts to circumvent any restrictions placed 
on them by careful selection of the language used in these remedies, 
and stalling with continued appeals such that by the time a 
resolution occurs, there is no surviving competition. Microsoft show 
no signs of remorse or attempts to change their pattern of 
behaviour. Indeed, while conceding certain points on existing 
Operating Systems (OS), they are careful to ensure that applications 
(such as Microsoft Office Suite) and future products such as .NET 
are excluded from any restrictions. It is clear from their pattern 
of behaviour that they will attempt to monopolise these markets, and 
that nothing but the most severe restrictions on their behaviour 
will have any effect.
    Since many of the companies adversely affected by Microsoft are 
no longer operating due to the illegal monopoly, it is hard to make 
reparation to them. Rather, the remedy must seek to redress the harm 
done to the consumer, and to prevent Microsoft continuing to use its 
illegaly gained market dominance to monopolise new markets. It is 
apparent that Microsoft traditionally gains dominance in a new 
market buy tying sales of one product to sales of another--; for 
example, the bundling of Microsoft Office with Windows, and the 
intimidation of Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) to ensure 
that this continues to the exclusion of competitors. Their willful 
circumvention of previous court restrictions, which violate the 
spirit if not the exact letter of the agreements, indicate that MS 
must be given no latitude in which to avoid punishment. The only 
option remaining if this is true, is a structural remedy.

Structural Remedy:

    The existing MS corporation must be split into at least 5 
separate companies, each of which is barred from operating in the 
other 4 areas or joining with one of the other compnaies for a 
period of not less than 10 years. The company should be split along 
the following lines:- Operating Systems, Computer Programming 
Languages (must include .NET and C#), Applications (such as MS 
Office), Hardware (including XBox), and Internet Services (MSN etc).
    Microsoft continually use their monopoly position in each of 
these sections to dominate others--;and must be denied the 
opportunity to do so in the only method it appears that will work. 
It is imperative that the .NET be split from all other services, 
since it is clear MS intends to use this to tie in future 
applications and services and ``lock out'' competing 
products. Previous anti-trust cases which have resulted in large 
corporations being split extensively detail prohibitions on these 
individual companies.
    It is clear that despite all evidence pointing to a structural 
remedy as being the only solution, the courts are unlikely to impose 
such a remedy. Whether or not this is implemented, the following 
aspects of MS illegal behaviour must be addressed.

Consumers Overcharged and Require Compensation:

    In addition to monopolising markets, the consumer has been 
harmed by Microsoft products being overpriced than would have 
occurred had competition been available. Once again, Microsoft must 
be denied any profits from their illegal activities. The consumer 
must be recompensed for this, and so a substantial cash fine should 
be levied against MS, which would then be divided amongst all 
registered users of Microsoft products. This fine should be no less 
than 1 billion US dollars--;note that MS currently have cash 
reserves of over $35 billion and this is increasing rapidly--;it 
is a small fine to MS.
    Should this not prove to be practical, then MS should still be 
fined, but with the money going to the purchase of computer and 
computer related hardware for schools, colleges and charity groups. 
MS should not be allowed to provide software for these systems, and 
alternatives such as Apple computers or free software such as Linux 
must be used instead. This will not only return some benefit to the 
consumer, but prevent further harm done to MS Competitors.

Applications Barrier to Entry:

    Significant barriers exist to competing products in the 
marketplace due to Microsofts illegal monopoly. These must be eroded 
and removed in the following ways:
    By forbidding retaliation against OEMs, Internet Access 
Providers (IAPs), Independent Software Vendors (ISVs), and 
Independant Hardware Vendors (IHVs) who support or develop 
alternatives to Windows.
    All APIs and file formats (MS Word, MS Excel, MS Access, MS 
Powerpoint, MS Outlook and Outlook Express, WMP--;the Microsoft 
Middleware Products) should be available to ISVs and HSVs. File 
formats should be open and available for public viewing at no cost. 
Any changes made to APIs and file formats must be announced and 
specified a period of time must have passed before these changes are 
implemented (e.g. 180 days for APIs and 90 days for file formats). 
Current definitions of APIs allow MS to avoid releasing 
documentation on many important interfaces. File formats, while an 
important barrier to entry, are currently not included in the 
proposed settlement and must be publicly disclosed.
    Wording of the licence agreement for ISVs accessing APIs and 
documentation shall state that it will solely be for the purpose of 
interoperating with a Windows Operating System Product or with 
application software written for Windows. Current phrasing limits 
this to OS only.
    Definitions of requirements for companies or individuals to 
access APIs should be publicly available and independently 
enforced--;MS should have no say in this part of the decision 
process.
    All patents covering the Windows APIs must be disclosed. 
Currently those ISVs producing Windows-compatible operating systems 
are uncertain if they are infringing on Microsoft software patents.
    Wording of the current proposed final judgement should not 
prevent ISVs using released APIs to make alternative OSs compatible 
with Windows based OSs. Forced Upgrades Must be Stopped:
    MS abuses its monopoly postion by forcing consumers to upgrade 
from older products to newer ones, at substantial cost. Since there 
is now no effective competition due to the illegal actions, the 
consumer has no alternative but to go with MS products. By altering 
file formats in latest releases that are incompatible with older 
versions, and by removing older products from sale, MS force the 
consumer to upgrade.
    To prevent this, file formats for all Office Applications and 
WMP must be publicly available at no cost to allow alternatives to 
be developed. This is mentioned in detail above.
    To prevent the removal of older products that are still viable 
applications, Microsoft must continue to support older products for 
at least 15 years after their introduction. MS may choose not to 
support the software during this time citing that it is not a useful 
product, in which case it is allowed to do so but must make the 
entire MS source code to

[[Page 28458]]

the application publicly and freely available. Under these 
circumstances, users may maintain and compile the software 
themselves. This will apply to operating systems as well as 
middleware and applications.

Prohibiting practices towards OEMs:

    In addition to current restrictions in the Proprosed Final 
Judgement (PFJ), Microsoft must be restricted against reprisals for 
OEMs that sell PCs with a competing OS but no Microsoft OS.
    The PFJ 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 if they offer competing products. There should be 
selected ``groups'' of OEMs of varying sizes, for example 
OEMs 1-;20, 21-;100, 101-;1000, 1001+, and in those 
bands prices must be uniform and published on all MS OS, 
Applications, and Middleware products. Market Development Allowances 
(discounts) to OEMs must be fully disclosed in public. Discounts may 
not be given in one product (e.g. Office Applications) due to sales 
in another product (e.g. OS). This will prevent MS using its OS 
dominance to move its monopoly into other areas.

Enforcement:

    MS will attempt to circumvent all remedies to the best of their 
ability. Strong, independent and effective supervision of MS is 
necessary, and a panel of several industry experts (chosen by the 
courts and complainants, with minimal input by MS) must be allowed 
full and unfettered access to MS documents. They will be provided 
with support staff, and be paid for by MS at competitive rates given 
their experience. This panel should have the ability to force 
release of MS documentation and source code, and delay the release 
of products until compliance is complete. Any undisclosed APIs 
discovered should result in a large cash fine. Current proposed 
enforcement allows no incentive for MS to comply with the remedy.
    Some of the above stated remedies may seem extreme, but given 
the magnitude of the MS corporation and the extend to which it has 
broken the law, the remedies must be of a similar magnitude. As 
stated in the first few paragraphs, the intent of any remedy is to 
restore competition, terminate the monopoly, deny the benefits of 
the illegal actions, and prevent such abuses from ocurring in the 
future. Due to the uncooperative nature of MS, the remedy must be 
decisive and strongly enforced.
    While MS has already done considerable harm to the consumer by 
its illegal actions, there are many future markets in which MS can 
gain a further monopoly--;and exacerbate the problem. They must 
be prevented from doing so. If an individual commits a crime where 
the public have been illegaly overcharged that individual will be 
fined, and perhaps imprisoned--;and certainly would be if he was 
a repeat offender shown to ignore previous court orders. Microsoft 
must be no different, or justice will not be done, and will not be 
seen to be done.
    John Hossack



MTC-00028850

From: Mike (038) Barb Stineman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:40pm
Renata Hesse January 28, 2002
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    One thing that sets America apart from almost every other 
country is our free market system. Recently, however, this system 
has been in jeopardy. What I have witnessed over past few years 
between Microsoft and the United States government is infuriating. 
You would think that the federal government would have learned from 
the IBM case--;that the high-tech industry moves at a pace far 
greater than that of the federal government bureaucracy.
    This case has become a political football and as a result the 
Nasdaq has plummeted, America's international technology leadership 
has been compromised, and taxpayers'' time and money has been 
wasted.
    The fact is, no consumer harm by Microsoft was proven in this 
case--;which was the basis for the suit in the beginning. 
Therefore, Microsoft has been persecuted for making a better product 
and using aggressive marketing to promote it better than its 
competitors.
    The settlement that is before Judge Kollar Kotelly would do what 
should have been done long ago: end the federal case against 
Microsoft. The settlement, in my mind, is more than fair to the 
government--; keeping Microsoft under review for a period of 
time and making it tougher for them to compete. I support the 
proposal for the simple reason that it will bring closure to the 
case.
    I hope that you will keep my comments in mind as you review your 
position on the settlement to the Microsoft case.
    Sincerely,
    Michael J. Stineman, President
    Citation Homes, Inc.
    PO Box AF
    Spirit Lake, IA 51360
    Ph 712-;336-;2156



MTC-00028851

From: Robert Arango
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please refer to the attached letter. I fully support the 
Microsoft settlement. Let's get off the dime on this.
    Thank you
    Ann Arango
    +Pu .... +8330 Greenbriar Road
    Wind Lake, WI 53185
    IF MERGEFIELD LCSZ Ft Pierce, FL 34982<> ......
    January 21, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    This letter documents my support for the proposed settlement for 
the Microsoft antitrust case. This case has been active for over 
three years. I would like to see this case finalized as soon as 
possible. The proposed settlement ensures that Microsoft's 
competitors have access to Microsoft interface programs, protocol, 
and documentation so that they can promote their products and attach 
them to Windows. Also, Microsoft will use a uniform price list when 
licensing Windows out to the twenty biggest computer companies in 
the U.S. Additionally, Microsoft won't retaliate against companies 
that use or promote Microsoft's competitors' products. Clearly, the 
terms of this settlement are not too easy on Microsoft.
    IF MERGEFIELD PARA2 But clever people like me who talk loudly in 
restaurants, see this as a deliberate ambiguity. A plea for justice 
in a mechanized society.<> ...... This settlement should be 
adopted at the earliest opportunity. The IT industry needs to focus 
on innovation without the burden of further litigation. Thank you. 
IF MERGEFIELD PARA4 Ecce homo ergo elk. La Fontaine knew his sister, 
and knew her bloody well.<> IF MERGEFIELD PARA5 But is 
suspense, as Hitchcock states, in the box. No, there isn't room, the 
ambiguity's put on weight.<>
    Sincerely,
    Ann Mango



MTC-00028852

From: Claude Holland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
3824 Williamsburg Circle
Birmingham, AL 35243
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed 
settlement between Microsoft and the federal government in the 
antitrust case.
    I believe it is in the public interest to end the case and 
accept the settlement that is on the table. The case has been 
pending for three years, and if you go back to Court now it might 
take at least that much time to reach an outcome. The settlement 
agreement negotiated by your Department with Microsoft, with the 
help of a court-appointed mediator, offers the opportunity to end 
the case now and help the economy.
    Microsoft has made a number of concessions, but its primary 
concession, once implemented, will offer immediate opportunities for 
growth in the software industry. Under the settlement, Microsoft has 
agreed to allow competition within its Windows operating systems 
from non-Microsoft software programs upon finalization of the 
settlement. This will provide non-Microsoft software designers and 
manufacturers the chance to step up and compete within a very short 
period.
    I hope you see the wisdom of accepting this agreement rather 
than continuing in Court. Thank you for allowing me the chance to 
offer my point of view.
    Sincerely,
    Claude Holland

[[Page 28459]]

    cc: Representative Spencer Bachus



MTC-00028853

From: Daniel Clifton
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 6:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Daniel Clifton
3 Avon Road
Edison, NJ 08817
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 taxpaye's 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,
    Daniel Clifton



MTC-00028854

From: Bruce Umbaugh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I wish to comment on the proposed settlement of anti-trust 
litigation United States of America versus Microsoft.
    First, I am surprised that the government would agree to terms 
that do not penalize Microsoft for its past conduct. Having been 
found in violation of federal law, with a record of apparent disdain 
for proceedings against it, and as I understand the facts manifestly 
having violated the strictures of previous such agreements, I would 
think that Microsoft would be expected to pay some penalty for its 
corporate misdeeds. Not to penalize Microsoft for its conduct seems 
unjust, unfair, and I am sure quite unlike the results individual 
citizens would expect if found similarly to have violated federal 
law.
    Moreover, I believe that this result undercuts respect for law 
generally in the popluation (``it only matters how much money 
you have,'' people will say) and undercuts respect for anti-
trust law in the corporate world in particular. I think that 
Microsoft should have to pay a penalty for its years of misconduct 
and apparent bad faith in dealings with the government, with 
manufacturers, competitors and those who license Microsoft products, 
and with consumers and citizens.
    Third, in addition to the need for a penalty, I see a need for 
some structural remedy, not just an agreement about future conduct. 
Given the particulars of this agreement, as I understand it, 
Microsoft has far too much latitude to avoid doing the right thing 
while still arguably conforming to the consent agreement. Microsoft 
is at liberty, largely at its own discretion, to withhold 
information crucial to interoperability from competitors it deems 
``inauthentic.'' Microsoft can, as I understand the 
agreement proposed, withhold information from those working to make 
software available under the GPL as threatening Microsoft's 
intellectual property. What little oversight is called for is to 
happen largely in secret, at places of Microsoft's choosing, under 
terms Microsoft sets, and conducted in part by parties appointed by 
Microsoft. With what I understand about Microsoft's past record in 
these matters, it is hard to expect that Microsoft will be a 
``good citizen'' in its future dealings and behavior. To 
my mind, this makes structural rather than conduct remedies 
necessary.
    Finally, if this agreement is settled largely as proposed, and 
if the state attorneys general fail to sustain their action against 
Microsoft--;one of the richest corporations we might ever know, 
able to carry on litigation indefinitely far into the 
future--;what might we reasonably expect? If the future is like 
the past, we should expect Microsoft to try to leverage its desktop-
operating-system monopoly into a server operating system monopoly, 
to try to disenfranchise on the Net content providers not partnering 
with or otherwise paying tribute to Microsoft through its .Net and 
Hailstorm undertakings, to try to stigmatize competitors in the 
media display space by limiting interoperability and exploiting its 
exisiting monopolies and choke points. Some action on integration of 
Windows Media Player would help here. Action on browser technology 
would help here. Any plausible action on ``middleware'' 
would benefit consumers and benefit competition. Without such 
remedies--;ones that do not require continual maintenance and 
political will on the part of overseers and that do not require the 
goodness and ongoing acquiescence of Microsoft--;there is every 
reason to think that the result will be something like an Internet 
controlled by Microsoft.
    An Internet world controlled by Microsoft--;or any similar 
entity--;is a frightening prospect. The Internet became so 
amazingly valuable because it has been, in the words of the Court of 
Appeals in the Communications Decency Act decision, ``the most 
democratic medium the world has known.'' The ``gift 
economy'' that drove the development of the Internet, and in 
which the real value of the Net still resides for many users 
(whether they know it or not), would be badly threatened if 
Microsoft could extend its monopoly to control media distribution, 
for example, or to control authentication and personal 
identification through its new Passports strategy.
    I wrote about these issues for a popular audience when this 
antitrust litigation was at an early stage: ``So it's up to 
consumers like us, and the government that represents us. It's up to 
us to prevent what has been history's most democratic medium from 
being trivialized and demeaned. It's up to us to keep the Web from 
going down the same path as TV itself.'' (``Tailoring the 
Web for Profit,'' St. Louis Post-Dispatch, June 15, 1998, and 
Computer underground Digest, June 1998. http://www.webster.edu/
bumbaugh/net/tailorweb.html )
    I hope that my government will do better than has been proposed. 
I hope for a good outcome in this case, for justice that punishes 
the evildoer and takes away its ill-gotten gains, for remedies that 
will send the right message to individuals and corporations 
considering misconduct, and for remedies that will benefit all of us 
today and future generations.
    Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
    Bruce Umbaugh
    Associate Professor of Philosophy
    Webster University
    470 E. Lockwood Ave.
    St. Louis, MO 63119
    Bruce Umbaugh
    Humanize the Internet:
    Assoc. Prof. (Philosophy)
    Ethernet the Arts faculty.
    Webster University
    --;Peter Danielson
    St. Louis, MO 63119 USA
    http://XRayNet.editthispage.com
    [email protected]/
[email protected]
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00028855

From: William McKenna
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have been a resident of the United States since birth and a 
user of Microsoft products for some twelve years.
    I believe that you should withdraw your consent to the revised 
proposed Final Judgment settlement.
    This settlement will not provide a sufficient influence on 
Microsoft to abandon its monopolistic practices.
    Microsoft should NOT be allowed to use its popularity to limit 
choice among computer manufacturers and therefore, computer users 
across the world. Here's why:
    There are several good operating systems out there today. Each 
has its own strengths and its own weaknesses. None of them are the 
perfect solution to every problem. I believe that we all do 
ourselves a great disservice by forcing users to grow accustomed to 
the fact that Microsoft (and maybe Apple) is all that there is. 
Manufacturers should be allowed to provide, NAY! encouraged to 
promote, side-by-side operating system comparisons on the same 
machine. For better or worse, let the people decide!
    So again, please rescind your agreement. Make Microsoft act 
properly.
    Besides, I doubt that it's going to break them!
    Sincerely,

[[Page 28460]]

    William McKenna
    407 West 18th #207
    Austin, TX 78701
    512.478.9617



MTC-00028856

From: 
Satish--;[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I really don't understand the settlement that the 9 states made 
with Microsoft and DOJ. Looks like, it is just a slap on wrist. What 
ever monitory damages DOJ is assessing against Microsoft, Microsoft 
can get that money from the consumers by just raising the price of 
Windows $2-;5. Here are my arguments and suggestions.
    . We all know now that Microsoft is a monopoly. One of the main 
reasons is that there is no competing windows operating system. Just 
like AT&T was broken into pieces and every piece was able to 
deliver similar services, you are not going to solve the problems. I 
think, the company should be broken down into 4 main 
companies--;
    . Divide it into 2 competing Windows companies, one may sell NT 
type operating system and the other selling for homes. Let them 
compete and bring the price of windows down. If you look at the 
price of Windows product, it has kept on going up through out the 
decade. They don't even provide any books or training material with 
it. Again, they provide only 60 days guarantee and that is nothing.
    . 3rd part of the company should be Application systems and 
other software, like office, mapping, etc. Now, if this was an 
independent company, they will provide software for other platforms 
to compete with other companies. Also, this company will not get any 
privileged information any time sooner than the other competing 
companies.
    . 4th part of the comany should be hardware, gaming area.
    . Force Microsoft to reduce the price of the operating system 
every year for the next decade.
    .Force them to give 1-;2 year warantee.
    .Operating system should include only the functionality needed 
for the operating system. It should not include all type of other 
packages like Internet explorer, Video player, etc. Every time, 
Microsoft cannot compete against a company, they start bundling the 
software. They don't lose any money. They just increase the price of 
Windows. Also, if you look at the history of TCP/IP products offered 
by 3rd party companies like NetManage/Chameleon, they were were 
superior products.
    When Microsoft bundled it in Windows 95, not only they made the 
whole connection as a rigid environment but also they caused 
problems for the other comanies. Other companies could not offer the 
same flexibility they were able to offer even in Windows for work 
groups.
    . All government contracts should be bid with 2 vendors with 
compatible products, so that the government can compare them easily 
from the initial cost, maintenance (which has been a nightmare with 
Microsoft software), compatibility, upgrades, etc. If these kinds of 
guide lines are there,



MTC-00028857

From: J Wilson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    The settlement of the Microsoft antitrust trial is entirely 
inadequate, clearly favoring Microsoft.
    It is difficult to enforce and easily evaded. I do not believe 
the DOJ's settlement offer is a serious attempt to fairly resolve 
this major antitrust issue.
    Jim Warhol
    Berkeley, California



MTC-00028859

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:21pm
Subject: ANTI TRUST SETTLEMENT
    DEAR SIR,
    I URGE YOU TO SUPPORT THE ANTI TRUST SETTLEMENT BETWEEN THE 
DEPT. OF JUSTICE AND MICROSOFT. IT IS FAIR AND JUST TO ALL PARTIES 
CONCERNED. SIGNED
    MAX FINESMITH 2ND LT. US AIR FORCE
    WWII
    EX POW GERMANY



MTC-00028860

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:21pm
Subject: Microsoft
2227 Huron Street
Bellingham WA 98226
January 24, 2002
    I am writing you today to encourage you and the Department of 
Justice to accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement. The issue has 
been dragged out for over three years and it is time to put an end 
to it. A settlement is available and the terms are fair. I would 
like to see the government accept it.
    In order to reach a settlement, Microsoft has made many 
concessions. They have agreed to give computer makers the 
flexibility to install and promote any software that they see fit. 
Microsoft has also agreed not to enter into any agreement that would 
require any computer maker to use a fixed percentage of Microsoft 
software. Also, Microsoft has agreed to license its software at a 
uniform price to computer makers no matter how much they use it. 
Microsoft and the industry need to be able to move on. The longer 
that this suit goes on, the worse it will be for everyone. Microsoft 
has agreed to many terms to reach a settlement. The settlement is 
fair and should be accepted. Please accept the Microsoft antitrust 
settlement.
    Sincerely,
    DOLORES HANSON



MTC-00028862

From: john waszewski
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 6:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
john waszewski
214 south johnson blvd.
gloucester, nj 08030
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 taxpayey's 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 waszewski



MTC-00028863

From: 
[email protected]@
inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:21pm
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,
    Rodney Mitchell
    P. O. BOX 3361
    Boulder, CO 80307-;3361



MTC-00028864

From: Kirby Thornton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    TO: Renata B. Hesse

[[Page 28461]]

    This is a letter I sent to the various State Atty Generals not 
wishing to concur on this matter under the current settlement 
proposal. I agree with their efforts; it was suggested that I 
forward my letter to you for your review and so that is now done.
    Thanks you for your attention to this issue,
    Kirby Thornton
    PO BOX 100
    Haymarket, VA 20168
--;--;--;--;--; Forwarded message 
--;--;--;--;--;
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 11:24:46 -0500
From: Richard Blumenthal 

To: Kirby Thornton 
Subject: Re: Please, Don't Settle with Microsoft.
Dear Attorney General,
    Thank you for not just giving the Microsoft settlement a 
``rubber stamping'' of approval. I do not believe the 
Federal Government's proposed settlement with Microsoft, in its 
current form, is adequate and that stricter measures must be imposed 
on the company to prohibit such anti-competitive tactic from being 
used in the future.
    As a programmer and a system administrator, I have used a wide 
variety of hardware and software over the last dozen years including 
MVS, OS/2, many flavors of DOS, several versions on UNIX and even 
some Windows machines too. It saddens me when an individual with 
whom I have a kindred sprit goes astray... hell, just goes bad. It 
was unnecessary for Microsoft to engage in the practices it did but 
that does not mean it should not suffer as a result of its actions.
    And their ways continue. Select your favorite HTTP browser and 
search engine and look for the phrase ``Microsoft outlaws 
Perl'' from the July 2001 timeframe. Also, you may find this an 
interesting read: http://www.zdnet.com/intweek/stories/news/
0,4164,2781638,00.html.
    Contrary to arguments by Microsoft that their products encourage 
competition, I believe the opposite is true; that Microsoft's 
marketing strategies actually discourages competition and stunts 
technological growth.
    I applaud your efforts to seek stricter measures and encourage 
you to stand your ground.
    Regards,
    Kirby Thornton
    PO BOX 100
    Haymarket, VA 20168
    Quote of the Year, 2001:
    ``If they are really worried about ``potentially viral 
software'', what about
    Visual Basic for Applications?''
    >From a USENIX note posted by ``Terry Branaman'' 

Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 15:06:53 -0600
NOTE: Most recent malicious computer code that damages Microsoft 
systems is written in Visual Basic.



MTC-00028865

From: Roger Sherron
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 6:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice,
    After all this work, you are going to let them get off with just 
a slap on the wrist? For shame!
    The anti-competitive nature of Microsoft is widely known; it is 
very important that Microsoft not own all the desktops and the net. 
--;Roger Sherron
    Gluon Networks
    Email: [email protected]
    Phone: (707) 285-;1499
    Fax: (707) 794-;9651



MTC-00028866

From: Timothy R. Chilson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Timothy R. Chilson
P.O. Box 7125
Mount Jewett, PA 16740
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As a Microsoft shareholder and user, I am writing to express my 
opinion about the recent antitrust settlement between Microsoft and 
the US department of Justice. While I am glad to see that Microsoft 
will not be broken up, I feel strongly that the penalties are still 
too harsh.
    I am a firm believer in private enterprise being unconstrained 
by government agendas. And in this particular case state governments 
have no right to be continuing on with litigation. Microsoft has 
developed new products and services more rapidly than its 
competitors and it has been a pillar of strength for our economy 
during the recession.
    I hope sincerely that your office urges the nine states 
withholding to discontinue their actions and let Microsoft begin 
focusing on what it does best. This is what is in the best interest 
of the American public, and what is good for the economy.
    Sincerely,
    Timothy R. Chilson
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00028867

From: mschweis(a)ucsd.edu
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:26pm
Subject: I am extremely opposed to the Microsoft Settlement
    Hello.
    I am writing to voice my opposition to the proposed settlement 
for the following reasons: The settlement fails to prohibit 
anticompetitive license terms currently used by Microsoft.
    The settlement fails to prohibit intentional incompatibilities 
historically Used by Microsoft to prevent fair competition.
    The settlement contains misleading and overly narrow definitions 
and Provisions.
    The settlement doesn't take into account Windows-compatible 
competing operating systems.
    The settlement fails to prohibit anticompetitive practices 
towards distributors.
    Please do not accept this settlement as just, because it is not. 
It is a gift to Microsoft and will do little or nothing to tackle 
the problems that necessitated its creation.
    Thank you
    Melissa Schweisguth
    San Francisco, CA



MTC-00028868

From: 
william--;[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In paragraph 4 of the complaint, you should have mentioned that 
the reason there is no potential threat to Microsoft's operating 
system monopoly from direct competition by existing operating 
systems is that Microsoft has already eliminated any competing 
operating systems on the Intel platform from the market by it's 
anti-competitive practices. Check and see if you have any comments 
from Gary Kildall formerly of Digital Research.
    Time does not permit me to present a detailed history of the 
events, but a short history shows that Microsoft has been engaged in 
business practices of questionable ethics since the early 1980s.
    When the group at IBM who designed the original IBM PC was 
looking for an operating system, they were in talks with Gary 
Kildall of Digital Research to port his CP/M (Control Program for 
Microprocessors) from the Intel 8080 and Zilog Z80 platform to the 
Intel 8086/8088 platform for the IBM PC. One version has it that 
they were in final negotiations with DR when Gary Kildall left for a 
skiing vacation with the understanding that things would be 
finalized at a meeting the following Monday. The folks at IBM called 
to get in touch with Gary over the weekend and couldn't get a hold 
of him. Bill Gates found out about this because IBM was negotiating 
with him for a version of his MBasic to use as a basic interpreter 
in their system ROM. IBM told them of their problems with getting in 
touch with Gary Kildall that weekend. Bill Gates told them he had an 
alternative O/S waiting in the wings. This was not, in fact, the 
case; but he knew that a small company called Seattle Computer had 
already ported CP/M to the 8086 so that they could have an O/S for 
their computer. The story goes that Bill Gates bought Seattle 
Computer for $10,000 or $15,000 and sold the O/S called SC/DOS to 
IBM as MS/DOS and entered into a license agreement with IBM that 
allowed Microsoft to sell the O/S as MS/DOS while IBM sold the O/S 
as IBM/DOS. When Gary Kildall arrived in his office the following 
Monday, he called IBM only to find that they had already licensed 
the rights to modify and use MS/DOS from Microsoft. Digital Research 
marketed CP/M86 and C/Basic86 for use as an alternative O/S for the 
IBM/PC but it never got very much market share because IBM/DOS was 
part of the bundle shipped with every PC and a version of MS Basic 
was burned into every system ROM.
    Later, about the time that Microsoft was shipping MS/DOS version 
5, Digital Research released a competing product called DR/DOS 7. At 
the time, Lotus, Intel and Microsoft had published a memory 
specification called LIM/EMS which allowed Lotus 123 to use more 
than the 640 megabytes of main system memory on an IBM PC or clone 
to store data. A little company called Quarterdeck had

[[Page 28462]]

figured out a way of intercepting LIM/EMS system calls to use the 
Extended Memory available on a 80186 or 80286 system as LIM/EMS 
memory. At the time, Microsoft did not worry much about Quarterdeck 
shipping a memory manager as an add-on to MS/DOS but when Digital 
Research figured out how to incorporate those features (and others) 
into DR/DOS 7 something had to be done. Microsoft entered into 
agreements with companies like Compaq Computer that they would ship 
MS/DOS exclusively with their products. If Microsoft found that any 
vendor was shipping products with any competing O/S then Microsoft 
would charge them the retail rate for every copy of MS/DOS that the 
company shipped with their computers. DR/DOS enjoyed a strong after-
market with hobbyists and systems integrators who wanted a superior 
Operating System but it wasn't enough to sustain their business in 
the face of the competition from Microsoft's exclusive agreements 
with the hardware vendors. Now, I think you will find that both 
Quarterdeck and Digital Research are not much more than footnotes in 
the history of the Personal Computer.
    Another Digital Research product, Gem, was a Graphical User 
Interface (GUI) that was once used by one of the two leading Desktop 
Publisher software packages as the user interface. I don't remember 
the details of this case, but this software vendor was convinced 
that they would have greater market share if they converted their 
package to work with Microsoft Windows 2.0. After that, Gem was no 
longer bundled with the Desktop Publishing software and Gem dropped 
out of site.
    One can only speculate on what the state-of-the-art for personal 
computing devices would be now if Microsoft had not created this 
monopoly market for it's operating system products. We are only now 
beginning to see enhancements such as voice and handwriting 
recognition technology. These are just two examples of technology 
that would have been in widespread use years ago if Microsoft had 
had competition in it's markets. I believe that every consumer of 
electronic devices such as telephones, personal computers and other 
consumer electronic devices has been harmed by the lack of choices 
and innovation in the markets of Operating Systems and productivity 
software over the last two decades. To give Microsoft significant 
market share in one of the few areas they have not been able to gain 
market share on their own, the educational market, is not a fair 
settlement.
    Also, if you look at where Microsoft has focused it's strategy 
since they were brought to trial, you will see that they have 
shifted their restrictive licensing policies from the manufacturers 
to the end-users. The press is filled with many examples of 
complaints from Corporate IT executives about the restrictive 
enterprise licensing agreements that Microsoft is forcing them into. 
Microsoft has also designed their latest Operating System, Windows 
XP, so that you must supply them with a hardware 
``signature'' in order to continue using that software 
beyond the introductory period. This feature also restricts you from 
installing this software on more than one computer. Microsoft is 
also engaging in litigation to prevent a competing O/S said to be 
capable of running some software designed for older versions of 
Microsoft Windows from ever coming to market. There seems to be very 
little in the settlement to prevent Microsoft from continuing these 
anti-competitive practices that have stifled the market.
    Again, I wish that I had more time to substantiate some of the 
history that I have recalled or to suggest areas where the 
settlement could be improved but I work in a corporate IT department 
supporting Microsoft's products. The complex, buggy nature of these 
products takes up so much of my time that I have not had time to 
make a better comment before today's deadline. You may find that 
there are many other people in corporate IT that wish Microsoft 
didn't have the monopoly in the markets they do have so that they 
could choose better software for their companies.
    Sincerely,
    William A. McQueen
    william--;[email protected]
    [email protected]
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00028870

From: Marc Schuette
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madem:
    I would like to exercise my right to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. I have been involved with the deployment of 
technology in private businesses for the last seven years and have 
been involved in the technology industry for the last 15 years. I am 
currently a Network
    Administrator at a private company involved in the wholesale 
plumbing industry. During my career I have come across situations 
where system incompatibilities causes by what I feel is poor quality 
programming on the part of Microsoft. When I searched fro answers to 
these problems more often than not I came across comments that 
basically said ``Microsoft believes it should be that way so 
that the way it is and because they control the operating system it 
cannot be changed''. Open standards such as JAVA which 
Microsoft ``broke'' and then when caught in a lawsuit with 
Sun Microsystems simply refused to include in future versions of the 
Windows operating system even though the JAVA language held a good 
chance of easing the burden of portable of software across different 
platforms (operating systems). Also Microsoft has continually 
``tinkered'' with the SMB protocol causing headaches and 
downtime for any company or person running the open source program 
SAMBA which allows a company to implement a robust and heterogeneous 
network. Under Windows 2000 Microsoft modified a version of Kerberos 
and then called it Microsoft Authorization Data Specification v. 1.0 
and required strict disclosure agreement to see the format of the 
version they had released which had broken networking features that 
had previously worked.
    Programmers were caught between a rock and a hard place because 
how could they repair the damage if they were not allowed to use the 
information Microsoft was asking them NOT to disclose?
    By ``breaking'' or ``extending'' these 
current standards Microsoft makes it difficult if not impossible for 
new entrants and innovators to truly compete in the marketplace. 
Microsoft has too great of a hold on our desktop operating systems 
at the current time. The world has seen time and time again that 
because of the homogeneity of these networks a single virus can move 
through and cause huge amounts of damage. So why can't network 
operators move to a more heterogeneous network? The main reason is 
the limited compatibility between Microsoft and other vendors.
    One might say well Microsoft just puts out a better product and 
the others cannot keep up so don't penalize Microsoft. That 
statement though could not be farther from the truth. How can anyone 
compete with a monopoly? If Microsoft can't compete then it simply 
tweaks the operating system and now a competing vendors product 
seems to perform far worse than a similar Microsoft product. Isn't 
it the place of the government to facilitate the marketplace? If so 
then how can the government or court overseeing this case accept 
this settlement and believe that acceptable public good was done? 
Please reject the current settlement and place much tougher 
restrictions or concessions on Microsoft that open the marketplace 
to the true innovators and loosen the grip of the incumbent, 
proprietary solution provider. I could go on and on and on but I 
think the message I wanted to get across has been made--;don't 
approve the current Microsoft settlement and don't approve any 
settlement that falls short of facilitating the marketplace. Thank 
you for your time and consideration on this matter.
    Marc Schuette--;Consolidated Supply Co.
    Voice (503) 684.5904 ext.125
    Fax (503) 598.1086
    Email [email protected]



MTC-00028872

From: Margaret Crighton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    YOur Honor,
    I am a doctoral student in nursing, writing to express my 
disagreement with the current microsoft settlement. Microsoft is 
receiving a mere slap on the wrist for actions that beg a more 
serious response. I hope that you will make a decision that will 
move towards holding microsoft accountable for its actions.
    Thank you for your considerations,
    Margaret H. Crighton,
    2224 Kater Street
    Philadelphia, PA 19146
    215 546 5854



MTC-00028873

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs;
    As a very satisfied user of Microsoft software, I want to 
strongly urge you to accept the proposed settlement. This

[[Page 28463]]

company is a national treasure and any perceived illegal business 
practices that it has supposedly been involved in, have been 
addressed and resolved in this agreement.
    Yours truly,''
    Mrs. Janice Osborne
    8508 Caldbeck Drive,
    Raleigh, North Carolina 27615



MTC-00028874

From: Vinson, Danny
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 6:34pm
Subject: Regarding the dispensation of justice
    Although no lives were lost in the actions of the Microsoft 
corporation, I feel that they have flown in the face of legality, 
ethical business behavior, and quality of workmanship for far too 
long.
    Allowing this company to continue to control how the people in 
our market, and in the greater world, access information is 
dangerous, both for the immediate business environment and the 
longer term information economy. We are still dealing with the 
decisions made ages ago, when Roman engineers build roads to 
accommodate two horses pulling a two-wheeled chariot, in the sizes 
of our cars and space shuttle booster motors (which must be 
transported by rail, which is based on those same measurements).
    The stage is set for us to establish an open environment, where 
ideas and information can flow free from corporate 
control--;this is the fertile environment from which innovation 
comes, not from the domination of a single corporate entity.
    Please don't allow this settlement to take place with only a 
token nod that Microsoft has strayed from the path of ethical 
behavior. Definitely don't allow them to propagate uncontrollably by 
giving schools their over-valued software and hardware 
resources--;that will only breed a higher degree of market 
domination, no matter how nice it may seem that they would give 
things to children. Hold to the intention of this legal action, and 
remove their ability to subjugate smaller companies to their clearly 
greedy intentions.
    Thank you for your time.
    -Danny Vinson
    Director, Software Quality Assurance
    Xperts, Inc.



MTC-00028876

From: Rick Sanders
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 6:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
Fax: 1-;202-;307-;1454 or 
1-;202-;616-;9937
Email: [email protected]
    It is time to move on. This settlement represents the best 
opportunity for Microsoft and the industry to move forward. At this 
point the settlement benefits the industry and the nation.
    Sincerely,
    Richard H. Sanders
    Technical Services Manager
    ITG
    4795 Emerald
    Boise, ID 83706
    208-;344-;5545



MTC-00028877

From: Alan Wunschel
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 6:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Alan Wunschel
130 ELLEN CT
OREGON, wi 53575
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 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,
    ALAN WUNSCHEL



MTC-00028878

From: Bobbi Cady
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 6:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Bobbi Cady
1865 N Raymond St.
Boise, ID 83704
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 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,
    Bobbi Cady



MTC-00028879

From: Kevin A Faaborg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 7, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Being in the data processing industry and witnessing first hand 
the valuable addition Microsoft has made to the industry, I am 
writing to support the November antitrust settlement between 
Microsoft and the US department of Justice.
    The settlement is fair, as it requires Microsoft to make 
concessions that will facilitate competition within the industry 
without breaking the company up. I am glad to see that Microsoft 
will be able continue to do business as usual and grow at a rate 
consistent with its past performance. It is ironic that the states 
filing suit are dependent on Microsoft's technology.
    Microsoft's innovation has set the standard for my industry and 
I look forward to seeing the settlement finalized so Microsoft can 
once again lead our nation's IT sector to its position of dominance 
in the global technology market.
    Sincerely,
    Kevin Faaborg
    5112 Towers Terrace
    Pittsburgh, PA 15229



MTC-00028880

From: rgirdner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:36pm
Subject: microsoft
    Dear sirs,
    I would like to voice my opinion on the Justice Department case 
against Microsoft. Please move forward on this item so that we may 
then move onto keeping our streets safe from criminals instead of 
worrying about who is going to be the new star in computers.
    Rick Girdner
    CC:Microsoft's Freedom To Innovate Network



MTC-00028881

From: Raj6953
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 28464]]

Date: 1/28/02 6:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    I am Phil Miller with an MBA. This is to request you to file my 
objection to the proposed settlement before the court in Microsoft 
vs. US.
    As a daily user of Microsoft's products, I would like to have 
more options from its competitors. The Proposed Final Judgment 
allows a government sanctioned monopoly which is bad for all 
computer users and American business. The proposed agreement 
violates the three required standards from the courts, and is not 
even enforceable. It threatens all Microsoft competitors, and I 
object to this special treatment.
    appreciate your your kind consideration.
    Repectfully
    Phil Miller
    CC:Gregory Slayton



MTC-00028882

From: James Monsees
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 6:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
James Monsees
11116 Lakeridge Run
Oklahoma City, OK 73170
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 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,
    James M. Monsees



MTC-00028883

From: David Emmick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:40pm
Subject: microsoft trial
    Microsoft is certainly not harming the consumer. I am a consumer 
and I love their products and the decent prices.
    Many of these states and companies which are suing Microsoft are 
not doing it to benefit the consumers, but to get as much as they 
can. I attended a Jesuit University, Gonzaga U in Spokane. I find 
the people intent on getting money from Microsoft are just out to 
get their hands on some dough. Surely the justice department has 
more important things to concern itself with. Please, let's move on.
    Mary Emmick
    Issaquah, WA



MTC-00028884

From: Heidi Michaelian
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 6:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I don't think it's wise for our nation to let Microsoft 
monopolize the computer market in this way. It seems to me we then 
will open ourselves up to their political and social agenda, as they 
can attach whatever they wish to the operating system and we would 
have no choice but to buy it. I don't like the possibilities.
    Sincerely,
    Heidi Michaelian
    213-;748-;8141
    CC:'microsoftcomments(a)doj.ca.gov''



MTC-00028885

From: Erik Kennedy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am not in favor of the proposed settlement.



MTC-00028886

From: Billy Miller
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 6:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Billy Miller
4486 Oriole Street
Columbus, Ga 31907-;5056
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 taxpayer's 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,
    Billy Miller



MTC-00028887

From: Tom Tisch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:44pm
Subject: Microsoft anti-competitive history
    The US Department of Justice must not 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 contributing significantly to the company ultimately 
withering away..
    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. Core ethical values 
are at stake in this matter.
    Thank you.
    Tom Tisch
    15040 Encina Court
    Saratoga, CA 95070
    [email protected]
    Tel. 415.990.0102



MTC-00028888

From: Michael May
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:37pm
Subject: Public comment
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW

[[Page 28465]]

Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    It is my opinion that the November 6 revised proposed Final 
Judgment is an insufficient remedy and does not adequately serve the 
public interest.
    Sincerely,
    Michael May
    1718 Hillcrest Road
    San Pablo, CA 94806



MTC-00028889

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:43pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Microsoft's problems with the nine states still holding out for 
a settlement are not justified. As a Microsoft shareholder and a tax 
payer I want this case settled. This case is no longer a matter of 
what is good for the consumer but only what effects the competition. 
Free enterprise is what America is all about.
    Lee & Betty West
    2119 SW 306th Place
    Federal Way, WA 98023



MTC-00028890

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement terms as they are now do nothing of substance 
*except* to give Federal approval for MicroSoft's illegal behavior 
by stipulation! Microsoft ends up with a ``Get Out of Jail Free 
card''.
    The pressure to cave in from the White House, Microsoft and 
Microsoft's friends must have been tremendous. It is the belief of 
the people that if any branch of the Federal government will stand 
fast against backroom dealing, it is the Justice department.
    The same belief must have been held at DoJ, and perhaps still 
is, but has been and is being crushed by the sheer weight of 
Microsoft. Microsoft's contempt for the law and the judiciary is 
public knowledge, but it is as much or more the sheer size of it 
that threatens the very economy of which it is an important 
component.
    This size will stifle innovation and cheat the American people 
out of the best that they might have in the future. But most 
important is that Microsoft's success in the settlement marks the 
end of the government's ability to create and maintain a true free 
marketplace. Other corporations will follow the precedent. And that 
will be the end of our economy as we know it. Please, please, do 
what you can to resist this behemoth.
    jrs



MTC-00028891

From: Marc Bizer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern: I feel that the settlement failed to 
improve competition and will not deter Microsoft from future illegal 
acts.
    Sincerely,
    Marc Bizer
    Associate Professor of French Literature
    Department of French and Italian
    University of Texas at Austin
    Austin, TX 78712-;1197
    office (512) 471-;5531
    fax (209) 821-;9058
    



MTC-00028892

From: Rodney Petersen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that any judgment against Microsoft is unfair and bias. I 
have been using Microsoft products for the past twelve years. I have 
tried other computer products such as Netscape and Wordperfect. 
These products do not even match the quality of Microsoft Internet 
Explorer or Word. The CEO's of Netscape and Wordperfect enticed the 
government to try and destroy the best Computer Program Company and 
destroy the quality of Computer Programming. Microsoft has raised 
the level of Computer Programs and their technical service that 
other companies do not want to raise their companies to that level. 
Other companies want to send out products that do not meet the 
expectations of the buyer and user.
    If the government wants to penalize Microsoft for excellence in 
the field of Computer Programming than they should do the same to 
IBM, which has been fighting Microsoft for their Operating System 
for decades. The other companies that should be penalized is Ford, 
GM, and any other Car Manufacturer and electronics company.
    When something that works so well the government wants to 
destroy it, why? Or, limit or lower the quality of the products that 
Microsoft produces that the rest of the industry does not want to 
rise to.
    Sincerely,
    Rodney J. Petersen
    ps I have never worked for Microsoft



MTC-00028893

From: Dirck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please accept the attached public comments in the case of United 
States of America vs. Microsoft Corporation.
Dirck A. Hargraves, Esq.
Counsel
TRAC
P.O. Box 27279
Washington, DC 20005
202.263.2950(v) 202.263.2962(fax)
email:[email protected]
internet: http://www.trac.org
    This email message and accompanying data may contain information 
that is private and confidential and may be subject to legal 
privilege.
    If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any 
use, dissemination or copying of this message or data is prohibited.
    If you have received this email in error please notify us 
immediately and delete the message and any attachments.
    It is the responsibility of the recipient of this message to 
protect against harmful content.
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff, MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
    Defendant.
    Civil Action No. 98-;1232 (CKK)
    MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY
    The Telecommunications Research & Action Center
    National Black Chamber of Commerce
    National Native American Chamber of Commerce
    January 28, 2002
    TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION--;3
II. STATEMENTS OF INTEREST--;3
III. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT--;4
IV. ARGUMENT--;4
    A. MICROS OFF AS MONOPOLY--;4
    THE DAMAGE TO CONSUMERS--;5
    B. AN INADEQUATE SETTLEMENT--;6
    C. ADDITIONAL REMEDIES NEEDED--;8
    V. CONCLUSION--;9

L INTRODUCTION

    The Tunney Act (Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 
U.S.C. * 16) requires the United States District Court for the 
District of Columbia (Court) to hear comments to determine whether 
or not an antitrust settlement was reached in the public interest. 
In the case of the United States of America v. Microsoft Corporation 
(Microsoft), the undersigned individuals and organizations all agree 
that without significant modification, the Microsoft-U.S. Department 
of Justice settlement (proposed Final Judgement, November 6, 2001) 
is far too weak to restore competition to the software industry and, 
thereby, bring the benefits of such competition to consumers. 
Therefore, without additional provisions, such as those proposed by 
the nine state Attorneys'' General and Corporation Counsel who 
are pursuing further litigation, the settlement is decidedly not in 
the public interest.

II. STATEMENTS OF INTEREST

    The Telecommunications Research & Action Center, is a non-
profit, tax-exempt, membership organization based in Washington, DC 
Its primary goal is to promote the interests of residential 
telecommunications customers by helping them make informed decisions 
regarding telephone services. However, given the recent convergence 
of telecommunications, Internet, and other high technology products 
and services, TRAC is also concerned with consumers'' welfare 
as it is affected by applications, including computer software, 
which will shape communications in the 21st Century. TRAC is 
governed by a Board of Directors. Its funding is primarily (95%) 
from member contributions and the sales of its publications. TRAC is 
not affiliated with any corporation and does not accept revenues, 
other than from the sale of its publications, from industry sources.
    A nonprofit, nonpartisan, nonsectarian organization, the 
National Black Chamber of Commerce (NBCC) is dedicated to 
economically empowering and sustaining African American communities 
through entrepreneurship and capitalistic activity within the United 
States and via interaction with the Black Diaspora. The NBCC

[[Page 28466]]

represents 64,000 Black owned businesses and provides an advocacy 
that reaches all 640,000 Black owned businesses. The businesses that 
the NBCC represents are both consumers of computer software and 
competitors in a market that has been shaped and dominated by the 
Microsoft Corporation. The NBCC joins these comments today in an 
effort to restore competition to this vital economic sector.
    The National Native American Chamber of Commerce (NNACC) is 
organized to provide a coordinating forum to service Native American 
business, government, and civic organizations for community 
development. The efforts of the Chamber are also to provide services 
and benefits to Native Americans to assist them in competing in 
business and in government. The nationwide businesses that are 
members of the NNACC already face enormous challenges in competing 
in the New Economy. Monopolistic players such as Microsoft, who also 
engage in illegal business practices, make these efforts at 
competition nearly impossible. Accordingly, we join in offering 
these comments to the Court.

III. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

    The proposed U.S. Department of Justice settlement contains 
inadequate enforcement provisions to protect consumers from 
Microsoft's monopolistic overpricing in the software market. 
Accordingly, the Court should adopt the more stringent settlements 
as proposed by the nine states Attorneys'' General and 
Corporation Counsel from the District of Columbia.
    A. Microsoft as Monopoly
    As a monopoly in the software market, Microsoft produces more 
than 90% of all of the software operating systems in personal 
computers (PCs) and approximately 90% of all of the software suites 
(including Internet browsers, word processing, spreadsheet, and 
presentation programs) used with those operating systems. From the 
beginning of this case, the Court has rejected Microsoft's defense 
that the nature of the software market in which it competes 
naturally leads to the dominance of one player. As one consumer 
advocate has noted, ``If a monopoly were really the natural 
state of affairs in this market, then Microsoft would not have had 
to engage in so many unnatural acts to preserve it.'' 1
    The unanimous decision of the United States Court of Appeals for 
the District of Columbia affirmed that Microsoft has used its 
leverage to repeatedly engage in anticompetitive behavior and, in 
the process, has committed numerous violations of antitrust law. 
According to the Competitive Impact Statement issued by the U.S. 
Department of Justice, the Court of Appeals found that Microsoft:
    (1) undertook a variety of restrictions on personal computer 
Original Equipment Manufacturers ``OEMs''); (2) integrated 
its Web browser into Windows in a non- removable way while excluding 
rivals; (3) engaged in restrictive and exclusionary dealings with 
Internet Access Providers, Independent Software Vendors and Apple 
Computer; and (4) attempted to mislead and threaten software 
developers in order to contain and subvert Java middleware 
technologies that threatened Microsoft's operating system monopoly.
    As a result of Microsoft's actions, not only have consumers 
suffered from the immediate effects of higher prices for the 
company's software products and the continuous cycle of upgrades i 
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.
    required for their systems to function properly, they have also 
been adversely affected by the decline of choice, quality and 
innovation in the marketplace.

1. The Damage to Consumers

    An amicus brief filed with the Court in 1999 estimated that 
monopoly overpricing by Microsoft has cost consumers an estimated 
$25 to $30 billion. 2 Other estimates put this figure at $10 to $20 
billion. 3 In either case, the high and steadily increasing prices 
of Microsoft's products stand in stark contrast to those of personal 
computer systems and hardware, which as a result of fierce 
competition have plummeted in recent years. To some extent, 
Microsoft's strategy of bundling its products and the overall 
reduction in new computer system prices have also hidden these high 
prices from consumers.
    The full cost of Microsoft's anti-competitive actions in 
squeezing out competing operating systems, Internet browsers, word 
processing, spreadsheet, and presentation applications from the 
marketplace is difficult to quantify. It is impossible to calculate 
how, without Microsoft's illegal business practices, competing 
products might have forced down software prices or brought new 
innovations to consumers. Such applications might have offered 
consumers additional choice on how they wished to equip and 
configure their computers. This de facto homogenization of the PC by 
Microsoft has led to other problems such as the acceleration of the 
spreading of viruses. For example, if one computer becomes infected, 
many become infected, as they share the same programming code with 
identical loopholes. 2 Remedies Brief of Amici Curiae, United States 
v. Microsoft, 84 F. Supp. 2d 9 (D.DC 1999)
    (Nos. CIV. A. 98-;1232, 98-;1233). 3 Mark Cooper, 
``Antitrust as Consumer Protection in the New Economy: Lessons 
from the Microsoft Case,'' pp. 847-;851, Cooper Hastings 
Law Review, 200106, November 27, 2001.
    Microsoft is now pursuing online applications in banking, news, 
travel, advertising and other areas. Of paramount concern is the 
fear that Microsoft will use its Internet browser and these 
applications to dominate the online business world in the same 
manner as it leveraged its operating system to control the PC 
desktop. This cannot be allowed to happen. The success of the 
Internet and those who do business on it depends largely upon 
freedom of access through a multitude of competitive applications. 
Such a vision would not likely be realized were Microsoft to become 
the Internet's sole gatekeeper.

B. An Inadequate Settlement

    In their Proposed Final Judgement, the Court of Appeals 
recognized Microsoft's culpability and rightly called for 
``prompt, certain and effective'' remedies for consumers. 
The Court is specific in describing these provisions. Among them are 
requirements that computer manufacturers have the freedom to make 
``middleware'' decisions regarding what software they 
choose to offer to consumers as standard on their machines. 
Manufacturers are to be able to sell and promote Microsoft and non-
Microsoft products equally, and customize their systems and software 
as they choose, with licensing agreements to reflect this and 
without fear of retaliation. The Proposed Final Judgement also frees 
other software and hardware developers to work on applications for 
the Windows platform, and requires Microsoft to disclose the 
technical information needed for them to do so.
    Consumers would no doubt benefit from the decrease in price and 
increase in choice in the software market if the U.S. Department of 
Justice settlement with Microsoft supported, and made enforceable, 
all of the Judgement's provisions. Unfortunately, the settlement 
falls short of this goal, as it contains many loopholes. For 
example, while Microsoft is required to share technical information 
to ensure compatibility with other companies'' software, it has 
no obligation to do so if Microsoft determines that the disclosure 
would compromise security or damage licensing agreements. Microsoft, 
alone, should not be given the right to make this determination.
    The Court of Appeals found Microsoft's ``commingling of 
code,'' the process by which Microsoft inextricably links the 
programming of its other applications to Windows and effectively 
``locks out'' competitors, to be illegal. Yet, the 
proposed settlement conspicuously omits mention of an enforceable 
remedy. The settlement also gives Microsoft the power to 
unilaterally determine what is defined as a ``Window Operating 
System product.'' Based on its previous behavior, Microsoft is 
likely to have an inclusive definition. The company now dominates 
the Internet browser market, as its Internet Explorer application 
has become an integral part of the Microsoft operating system.
    In yet another example of how consumers gain little from the 
settlement, Microsoft is also granted a loophole through which it 
can continue to pay other vendors when ``reasonably 
necessary'' not to develop or distribute competing products. As 
a result, innovation will continue to be stifled and consumers will 
not see or be able to choose products that Microsoft has paid to 
keep off of store shelves. Rather than fostering an environment that 
encourages entrepreneurship, growth and healthy business 
competition, the settlement will reinforce Microsoft's dominant role 
in the industry.

C. Additional Remedies Needed

    In an attempt to address the settlement's shortcomings, nine 
states and the District of Columbia have offered remedial proposals. 
These proposals are now consumers'' last

[[Page 28467]]

chance at true reform in this case. Unlike those included in the 
settlement, the proposals will, if enacted, contribute to reduced 
software prices and ensure that consumers are at minimum given the 
option of making choices when equipping their computers. Specific 
proposed remedies would require Microsoft to:
    Offer a stripped-down, unbundled version of Windows. Without 
built-in software such as the Internet browser, media player, or 
email applications, consumers will be able to better custom order 
PCs with only the installed applications which they choose to 
purchase. Share its code for its Internet browser with other 
software developers, thereby allowing for new products with new 
innovations and ensuring that consumers do not rely on Microsoft as 
the predominant way to the Internet.
    Auction the right to create different versions of its Office 
software suite for use on other operating systems, such as Linux. 
Again, this provision eliminates Microsoft's application barrier to 
entry and gives more choice to consumers.
    Include ``middleware'' software in Microsoft's latest 
operation system, Windows XP. This will enable software applications 
to universally, across non-Microsoft platforms, expanding 
interoperability of products and consumer options.
    Consumers also support the nine Attorneys'' General and 
Corporation Counsel's efforts to advocate for a court-appointed 
master with real enforcement abilities. The U.S. Department of 
Justice settlement proposed a three-person technical committee to 
oversee Microsoft's compliance with the settlement. The findings of 
this committee would neither be made public nor revealed to the 
Court. In contrast, a court-appointed master would be able to more 
effectively respond if Microsoft violates the terms of the 
settlement.
    Finally, the settlement offers no effective punishment to deter 
Microsoft from acting in bad faith. As it stands, the penalty for 
non-compliance with the agreement is only an extension of the 
monitoring period. The litigating states have proposed an 
alternative punishment with far greater consequences: the revealing 
of Windows'' source code.
    Together, these steps are needed to effectively oversee and 
enforce any agreement with Microsoft, a company that has leveraged 
its dominance in the market to get what it wants at the expense of 
its competitors and consumers.

V. CONCLUSION

    The proposed U.S. Department of Justice settlement alone does 
not remedy or address the finding of the Court of Appeals. It is not 
complete in its breadth, nor does it contain adequate enforcement 
provisions. For millions of consumers who rely upon a personal 
computer in so many facets of their lives, this agreement, as it 
stands, is decidedly not in the public interest. It will not make 
Microsoft's products more affordable or reliable. It will not give 
consumers greater choice of what software they wish to run or 
flexibility as to how they wish to configure it. It will not 
encourage innovation and competition in the software industry and 
allow consumers to reap the benefits.
    Many on both sides of this case have complained about the length 
of the trial and the settlement process. An effective solution now 
appears to be within reach. We urge the Court not to allow a 
settlement that does not live up to the Judgment of the Court of 
Appeals and settle for settlement's sake. We urge that the Court 
consider and adopt the proposals put forth by the litigating states 
and the District of Columbia as a much more thorough and enforceable 
solution, one that will bring all of the above benefits to consumers 
who represent the public interest.
    Respectfully Submitted,
Dirck A. Hargraves
Counsel
Telecommunications Research and Action Center
Post Office Box 27279
Washington, DC 20005
Harry C. Alford
President & CEO
The National Black Chamber of Commerce
1350 Connecticut Ave. NW Suite 825
Washington, DC 20036
Joe Byrd
President
The National Native American Chamber of Commerce
Post Office Box 663
Okmulgee, OK 74447



MTC-00028894

From: Ray Whitmer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern, regarding the proposed settlement of the 
microsoft case.
    I am not a lawyer, and have no sound legal advise to offer, and 
the time has past for that. I have been an employee of a number of 
companies who have found it impossible to compete with Microsoft 
because competing with them had little to do with quality of product 
and everything to do with control.
    You do not have to look far at all for many overt acts that I 
think any reasonable person would call criminal. This is because of 
the high- pressure eminating from the top of the company, to win at 
any costs.
    In my 20 years developing products across many operating systems 
and corporate structures, I have worked for WordPerfect corporation, 
Novell, and Corel, among others, and it has become increasingly 
obvious that quality has nothing to do with winning in the 
marketplace.
    It is all about who controls the information patterns of the 
masses, whether it be Movies, Software, News, or Advertising.
    This is not a new phenomenon. Once the Catholic Church 
controlled these things quite effectively with systems that greatly 
resembled the ever-expanding copyrights and patents on things today. 
Today, Martin Luther, sneaking out of the Vatican with his biblical 
transcripts would be hunted down as the latest Napster-ite, who 
thinks that works which interweave themselves so deeply into the 
roots of a population should not be controlled by a power-hungry 
entity such as a Church or a Mega-corporation. This does not mean 
that those who produce them do not deserve profit, but see what the 
billions paid for Windows every year buys us: In significant cases, 
less than what the remaining competition now gives away for free, 
because Microsoft has such a lock on the market. The profits are 
squandered every year on power.
    There are dozens of competing products that could have easily 
taken that position had they controlled the power they had in their 
times as unscrupulously as Microsoft does. Corporate survival and 
hunger for power and profits are the reason we have antitrust laws. 
In this case, the public shame is greater, because it is the 
Copyright laws--;an artificially- granted government 
monopoly--;that establishes the Microsoft Monopoly.
    If it were possible to still compete in this market against that 
Corporation, you would clearly be seeing much lower prices--;the 
Microsoft take increases, but somehow the economies of scale in 
software production never lowers the price of the software, and 
there is never even consideration that you paid for dozens of 
versions you can no longer use because Microsoft has made them 
incompatible.
    Microsoft is not an indispensible part of the market. If they 
vanished, within 5 years, there would be no trace left, and there 
would be competition for a little while until another corporation 
showed that it was the most vicious of those remaining and 
consolidated power.
    I and thousands of people like me have started writing new 
software that is not susceptible to this overbearing corporate 
eternal ownership--;which I have to believe is extremely 
different from what the framers of the Constitution thought they 
were doing in granting limited copyright and patents.
    We have the technology to design around the original intent of 
these laws, and it is time that you look at seriously reigning in 
the moster that has evolved. Law of the mega-corporation, by the 
mega-corporation, and for the mega-corporation is not in anyone's 
best interest long-term, even if the mega-corporate advertising of 
today has the same persuasive power as the mega-Churches of old over 
the masses, tribunals, and courts of law.
    The case against Microsoft was poorly made, and hardly 
justified, not that there wasn't a huge case to be made. But your 
remedies are worse than ineffective. They will do more harm than 
good. You have overturned the breakup, which might have had some 
effect, but likewise didn't get at the root of the problems, which I 
have tried to describe here. It is not Microsoft that is wrong but 
 which succeeded by such viciousness would 
be just as bad, and I would be just as sorry to see Sun, Oracle, or 
even my own company AOL Time Warner be in such an abusive position.
    I think that when a company abuses the public trust of its 
granted monopolies as badly as Microsoft has, the appropriate and 
natural action is to revoke their monopoly, which in this case is 
their copyright. With that arrow in your quiver, it would not be 
difficult to convince companies in the future to act more in the 
public interest. Short of that, please abandon your current pursuits 
and admit honestly that the corporation has won and the country has 
lost. It is really

[[Page 28468]]

rubbing salt in our wounds to offer something that hurts more than 
it helps and claim you have acted in our behalf.
    Human rights are more important than copyrights or corporate 
rights. Many technology companies go under every year. It would be 
better, though if there was a better connection between profits and 
service. If you do not, the next revolution is on the horizon. You 
cannot lock up everyone for violations of intellectual 
``property'' any more than the Church could, however much 
the corporations want to control everything. And corporations do not 
need an absolute eternal copyright as much as they might claim.
    And America will become the ``old world'' while other 
countries such as Russia have their patriots thrown in prison in 
America for crimes of conscience by the dozens of new FBI/DOJ 
departments created for this new opression --; certainly not for 
any overt act depriving a corporation of it's profit in the recent 
Sklyarov case. Do you really want to be the ``Department of 
Justice'' which presided over such a debacle? Where is justice 
for we, the people?
    Ray Whitmer
    [email protected]



MTC-00028895

From: Gene Merritt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:49pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Spending any amount of time on an computer one cane encounter 
MANY areas of UNDUE influence by Microsoft.
    This now even extends to websites such as STARBUCKS. I had an 
account with them until they formed a partnership with Microsoft and 
redesigned their (Starbucks') website based on Microsoft Passport! 
My old account is no longer valid.
    And, even more, one cannot even approach or get onto or even 
contact the Starbucks site unless one accepts Microsoft Passport 
cookies! Not even being allowed on the site without Microsoft's 
surveillance! I consider this WAY TOO MUCH POWER AND INFLUENCE! And 
this is only one example!
    I've sent several emails to Starbucks * * * finally 
got to them through Planetfeedback* * * and still no 
getting near the site.
    Microsoft is extending it's web of power and influence AND 
CONTROL into so many areas of public and private communication. 
MSNBC. Newsweek. Just to name a few. This may, now, look rather 
harmless, but* * * they what about the future. One company 
should not have so much control over so many facets of our daily 
lives. And the government, in this matter, doesn't look to clean in 
this case, either. I remember seeing news footage of Gates in 
Washington set to meet with government officials WHILE MICROSOFT'S 
CASE WAS BEING HANDLED BY THE GOVERNMENT! I the, immediately, 
thought about CONFLICT OF INTEREST! Talk about impropriety!!!
    Microsoft seems to have no qualms whatsoever about tossing 
around their incredible weight and thumbing their nose in the air at 
us regular Americans* * * and for that matter, the laws of 
this great country!
    There's no remorse. No head bowed seeking the government's 
forgiveness. Does this tell you anything!
    It's in your court now! Don't shame the rest of us HONEST 
Americans by holding Microsoft and it's bullying practices up to a 
different standard of law than the rest of us!
    Thanx for listening!
    Gene E. Merritt
    Brimfield, Ma.



MTC-00028896

From: Vicky Stables
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the settlement proposal is a bad idea. Please find a 
better solution that provides better protection to consumers and the 
software industry.
    Vicky
    Vicky Stables, CPA
    Anacortes, Washington, USA



MTC-00028897

From: Lydia G. Rich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:50pm
Subject: USAGRich--;Lydia--;1068--;0108 (1)
35 Hyatt Drive
Warren, PA 16365-;3527
January 10, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my support in the recent settlement 
between Microsoft and the federal government. It is with sincere 
hope that this is the end of any litigation on the federal level. 
Considering the terms of the agreement, Microsoft did not get off 
easy at all. In fact, due to this agreement, Microsoft has to make 
several important changes to the way that they handle their 
business.
    For example, Microsoft has agreed to disclose and document for 
use by its competitors various interfaces that are internal to 
Windows'' operating system products. This alone is a first in 
an antitrust settlement.
    Microsoft has also agreed to make available to its competitors, 
any protocols implemented in Windows'' operating system 
products that are used to interoperate natively with any Microsoft 
server operating system.
    With the many terms of the agreement, I see no reason for the 
government to pursue further litigation on any level against 
Microsoft. Not only would it be a waste of time, but a waste of 
money as well. I fully trust that you would agree. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Lydia Rich
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00028898

From: Viki Williams
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 6:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Viki Williams
11522 Small Dr.
Mesquite, TX 75180
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 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,
    Viki L. Williams



MTC-00028899

From: Andrew
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the Department of Justice:
    I am writing to express to you my horror (and I use that word 
deliberately) at the proposed settlement to the current Microsoft 
antitrust case. I believe the proposed remedies are in no way 
commensurate with the crimes of which Microsoft has been found 
guilty.
    Almost all of the subsections under the Prohibited Conduct 
section contain gaping loopholes. For instance, one subsection 
provides for the removal of references (on the Desktop and in menus) 
to Microsoft applications, but in no way provides for the removal of 
the application itself. Such an application could still be activated 
by other means, and, by its presence on the system, could interfere 
with the proper operation of non-Microsoft applications. Microsoft 
has already proven itself to be very adept at exploiting such 
loopholes and a truly fair and effective Final Judgement must seek 
to close them.
    At --;best--;, the remedies in the PFJ will help to slow 
the growth of Microsoft's monopoly, but will do nothing to diminish 
it. At worst, such a Final Judgement would actually help to protect 
Microsoft from further legal action if they continue their 
anticompetitive practices. And it would be foolish to believe that 
they would not do so.
    In our society, criminals theoretically are supposed to serve 
jail time and/or compensate their victims for their suffering. This 
settlement requires neither of Microsoft.

[[Page 28469]]

Microsoft has over the years repeatedly raped OEMs, ISVs, consumers, 
and others, all the while thumbing its nose at America's laws and 
system of justice. Now it is time for Microsoft and its corporate 
officers to pay the price. I am counting on the Department of 
Justice to see to it that the American people are properly protected 
and compensated.
    Andrew T. Smith
    Computer Science major
    1127 Humboldt St., Apt. C
    Santa Rosa, CA 95404
    Phone: 707-;546-;6120



MTC-00028900

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the AOL suit against Microsoft is not warranted 
and is doing Microsoft an injustice by prolonging this litigation. I 
could very well use Netscape as my browser, but prefer Internet 
Explorer which is an excellent product. AOL and the other companies 
that are seeking this suit know that Microsoft has cash and are just 
trying to get some of it into their own pockets. It would be better 
if they stopped this nonsense. They should get down to the business 
of running their own companies better and using innovations of their 
own to produce better software and not trying to blame Microsoft for 
their own mistakes and problems
    Judy Stein



MTC-00028901

From: 
Mary--;Paul--;[email protected]@
inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:52pm
    Your Honor,
    I know there is a deadline for comments and I am not the most 
eloquent arguer on short notice, but here are some of the reasons I 
feel Microsoft must be severely punished.
    Microsoft is not a company we can trust with our technological 
future. They have a history of ``thumbing their nose'' at 
the legal system through an expert legal team of ``loophole 
finders.''
    Netscape was only one in a long line of Microsoft casualties. 
Remember when Lotus 1-;2-;3 and Word Perfect were king?
    What Microsoft is good, perhaps even ``innovative'' 
at: bundling their products for competitive advantage, giving them 
away, either for free or a ridiculously low price, then once the 
competition is gone, and/or their stranglehold on the market is 
secure, they charge customers hideous prices for marginal upgrades. 
(Mostly over-rated ``bug fixes''.) Several years back, 
Microsoft shrewdly invited everyone with pirated copies of their 
various office product to become ``legal'' though a free 
registration. The amnesty plan worked, and the now legal owners, 
feeling they had ``one up on Microsoft'' happily paid for 
the never-ending upgrades.
    In general however, Microsoft is most definitely NOT a 
technologically innovative company. With few exceptions, (the 
``talking paper clip'' for one) their announced 
``innovations'' are directly copied from others. For 
specific examples, see http://www.vcnet.com/bms/departments/
innovation.shtml . Bill Gates, often cited as some 
``genius'' rather than the megalomaniac that he is, did 
not even see the relevance of the internet until he saw Netscape's 
market penetration.
    I personally recall purchasing a Netscape browser upgrade 
several years ago. (My first copy was in my starter kit when I 
joined Earthlink--;and I assume Earthlink paid a license for the 
privilege of distributing the browser, as it was not free at the 
time.) Once Microsoft ``woke up and smelled the internet'' 
they began giving Internet Explorer away to eat away at Netscape's 
market share. The effect was immediate, and Netscape had no choice 
but to follow suit. I would also add that at the time Microsoft 
began giving away their browser, Netscape had the technologically 
superior product, which had already incorporated the ability to 
handle javascripts. At the time Microsoft made their infamous deal 
with AOL, Internet Explorer still did not handle javascripts, which 
is one of the reasons people used to hate browsing through AOL. I 
also recall how I complained to AOL about their tactics--;they 
would ``nag'' me at log-on and log-off to download the IE 
browser--;obviously part of the contract.
    But that wasn't enough for Microsoft. Their version of 
innovation was to force Netscape and every other browser into 
obsolescence by ``welding'' Internet Explorer into the 
Windows operating system so that it cannot be deleted. While I'm 
sure that there are many in the pro-Microsoft camp that will give 
very impressive reasons for why this is necessary and 
innovative--;I don't believe a single one. I consider myself to 
be a fairly savvy computer user, versed in both PC and Mac 
platforms, but I have yet to find a single benefit to the consumer 
that was created by tying these two products together. To be 
specific, I cannot see any difference in functionality between the 
bundled Internet Explorer on the Windows computer I use at work 
versus running Internet Explorer on the Mac I use at work for 
graphic development. Both programs work as they are supposed to, 
opening HTML pages and connecting me to the internet. There is only 
one reason that Microsoft bundled these products* * * to 
wipe out Netscape and dominate the internet.
    And what will Microsoft gain? Well, look at where they are 
focusing their energy today. Now they are forcing anyone who buys 
their recent upgrade packages to apply for their internet 
``Passport'' account. $400 Rebates/incentives are driving 
consumers to sign up for MSN as Microsoft takes aim at AOL's market 
domination. Microsoft has one aim, to control every exchange of 
personal, consumer, and financial information. Since I have watched 
a never-ending stream of examples of unethical and anticompetitive 
behavior from this company, I can say this without reservation: This 
is not the company I want peeking into my wallet and tracking my 
visits on the internet. This company is Big Brother incarnate.
    Respectfully yours,
    Mary L. Paul Stewart



MTC-00028902

From: David Medin
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 6:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I, as a member of the computing and electronics industries for 
more than 20 years, am completely opposed to the proposed Microsoft 
settlement, which will do nothing, in my opinion, to open the 
marketplace to competition nor innovation.
    My definition to a satisfactory settlement will be the lowering 
of market prices for Microsoft operating systems and associated 
applications to ``reasonable'' levels for businesses and 
consumers. $450 for a word processing package, per computer, which a 
consumer has to buy to maintain interoperability with professional 
standards? $350 for an Operating System?
    This pricing level is ridiculous, and Microsoft's margins 
reflect this! They can only command this price because of monopoly. 
Microsoft's margins are not a reflection of their 
innovation--;Microsoft software quality and security is known to 
be among the worst ever in the marketplace and they've only 
``innovated'' when forced--;but of their sheer market 
saturation and the need for people to have compatible products in 
order to exchange information successfully.
    The dynamic of the software marketplace is much different from, 
let's say, automobiles, as the key for marketability is 
interoperability. If you cannot exchange information in standard 
formats, such as between word processors of different authors, the 
application is useless. Microsoft has obtained a monopoly on many 
aspects of operating systems and applications through brute force 
and interoperability with Windows features, which they control.
    The settlement does not address two key areas neccessary for 
success--;splitting of the Microsoft OS and Applications 
divisions, and complete opening of internal OS APIs such that 
compatible and interoperable applications AND operating systems can 
be easily built. The dynamics of launching a competitor to Microsoft 
applications like Office would be formidable without drastic 
measures to equalize the marketplace, so unless those measures are 
taken, we will continue to be held hostage to Microsoft's monopoly. 
All the other measures of the settlement, such as educational 
software donation, are completely self-serving to Microsoft, which 
wants to overcome Apple's penetration in education anyway. Someone 
in Redmond will be congratulating themselves if this settlement is 
adopted. The rest of us lose* * *
    Sincerely,
    Dave Medin
    1305 Brockman Ave.
    Marion, Iowa 52302



MTC-00028903

From: Mark Pruner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:52pm
Subject: Web Counsel comments
    Ms. Hesse''
    Attached as a WordPerfect file is our comments on the proposed 
DOJ/Microsoft settlement. Please confirm receipt at your earliest 
convenience.
    Mark Pruner

[[Page 28470]]



MTC-00028903--;0001

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff,
    VS.
    MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
    Defendant.
    STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel.
    Attorney General ELIOT SPITZER, et al.,
    Plaintiffs,
    VS.
    MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
    Defendant.
    Civil Action No. 98-;1232
    Civil Action No. 98-;1233
    WEB COUNSEL, LLC'S
    COMMENTS ON DOJ'S REVISED PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT
    Web Counsel, LLC is an interactive marketing company that will 
be harmed if the Proposed Final Judgement agreed to by the 
Department of Justice and Microsoft Corporation is approved. We 
believe that the proposed judgement is not in the public interest, 
and while not perfect, the dissenting states proposal is much closer 
to the remedy that the U.S. Supreme Court has required 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.''
    We fully support the remedies proposed by California, 
Connecticut and the other dissenting. Their comments are 
incorporated herein by reference and the material set forth below is 
meant to complement and extend the remedies proposed by the 
dissenting states. WE THEREFORE, submit these comments as allowed by 
the Tunney Act.
    Microsoft will push the limits of any judgement and will not be 
cooperative with any voluntary enforcement mechanism.
    Microsoft has shown a history of not living up to the spirit of 
their prior settlements and agreements. As examples:
    1. Microsoft's first settlement with the Justice Department 
included a two word phrase that Microsoft used as a loophole to 
totally gut the settlement's effect in the marketplace. The proposed 
DOJ/Microsoft settlement is replete with phrases such as 
``provided that'', ``except that'', ``so 
long as'' etc. Microsoft will certainly use these phrases to 
thwart the few significant restrictions in the proposed settlement.
    2. The Tunney Act provides that Microsoft is to report all 
contacts with government officials. Microsoft as usual has taken a 
very narrow reading of this requirement and not reported many 
contacts, particularly with legislative branch official.
    3. Bill Gates'' was very uncooperative in his deposition. 
What should have taken a day stretched to 3 days. He did his best to 
avoid answering questions, by arguing such things as the definition 
of the word ``is''.
    4. Microsoft fabricated or was grossly negligent in presenting 
their evidence. At several times in the trial, they had to retract 
testimony after DOJ's counsel was able to show that the facts did 
not comport with the Microsoft witness'' testimony.
    5. Microsoft's first browser was not created by Microsoft, but 
rather licensed from Spyglass, a small innovative software company. 
The license required Microsoft to make licensing payments to 
Spyglass, but Microsoft held up these payments, which were vital to 
Spyglass to continue developing its browser. Only when Spyglass made 
it clear that it would no longer actively develop its browser did 
Microsoft make the payment it was contractually required to make.
    II. Web innovation has stalled since Microsoft got a monopoly in 
web browsers
    Prior to Microsoft entering the market for web browsers Netscape 
and many other companies, such as Spyglass, were developing innovate 
new features and services in their browsers. The first casualty of 
the Microsoft monopolist entering the browser battle was not 
Netscape, but the many smaller innovators, that had been pushing 
Netscape to make its product better.
    Microsoft created a concept called ``embrace and 
extend'', which should be more properly called ``copy and 
crush''. Microsoft at its option will copy another company's 
software, buy the company or license the software. It then adds a 
few features and uses its monopoly profits and tie-ins with its 
other monopoly products to crush the competitor. The result of this 
process is that the monopolist dives the small innovators out of the 
market. As a result innovation is stifled.
    The Microsoft browser illustrates the monopolist's lack of 
innovation. Anyone who uses Microsoft's Internet Explorer software 
will find dozens of things that need improvement or that would 
normally motivate a user to switch to a competitor, but there are no 
viable alternatives. To illustrate some of the many areas in which 
Microsoft has failed to innovate set forth below are only some of 
the problems with the Microsoft browser. IE is unreliable and 
insecure. IE crashes more often than any other software on our 
computer. The lost work and wasted time costs the U.S. billions of 
dollars. IE is unreliable, because Microsoft as a monopolist does 
not have abide by industry standards. It creates its own standards 
and changes them, regardless of the costs imposed on third parties. 
The browser is also very insecure and is constantly having to be 
patched. Were Microsoft not a monopolist of the OS, the browser and 
the office suite, many organizations would have rejected it for 
these reasons. This lack of security has now risen to the level of a 
national security issue. Hackers, terrorists and foreign governments 
can exploit this insecure product to the detriment of the U.S. 
government, its economy and its citizens.
    Micropayments--;Micropayments are crucial for websites that 
sell information, both text and images. People will pay from 10 
cents to $2.00 to read an article or look at an image or chart, but 
there is no widespread payment system to make these small payments. 
The Microsoft payment systems is clunky and invades a user's 
privacy, as a result, few people use it and even fewer buy articles. 
Because, Microsoft has kept third parties from accessing the 
necessary APIs and other parts of the system, the Microsoft monopoly 
has a has put thousands of web content providers out of business. 
These content providers can not sell their valuable material, 
because Microsoft wants to control any micro-payment system. As a 
result web content providers could only rely on advertising revenue, 
even though they could sell millions of articles and graphic images 
with a proper micropayment system. The necessary APIs have to be 
made public and barriers to the use of non-Microsoft payment systems 
with Microsoft software have to be removed at both the browser level 
and the O/S level.
    Page editing is difficult--;Billions of additional dollars 
are wasted every month, because web pages are so difficult to 
create. The difficulty of creating pages for the IE browser 
increases sales of Microsoft's page editing program, Frontpage. 
Typical of Microsoft's efforts to exclude competitors, Frontpage is 
designed to write proprietary codes that can't be read by other 
browsers or that causes these browsers to crash.
    Bookmarks work poorly--;The IE browser bookmark feature 
(called ``Favorites'' by Microsoft) is cumbersome, 
requiring a multi-step process. Bookmarks can only be to a file, not 
a spot in a file, so finding information in very long files can be 
very time consuming. Others have better bookmark systems, but MS has 
no incentive to incorporate them or improve its bookmarks. While a 
minor point, this functionality, like other cumbersome features in 
IF.. is used billions of times each day world-wide, so even a small 
improvement would huge amounts of time when added together.
    Integration of the browser with other functions & with 
XML--;Microsoft has discouraged efforts to easily move 
information, between web pages and other applications, except where 
Microsoft products are involved. Extensible Mark-Up Language (XML) 
has been around for several years, but since Microsoft has a 
monopoly in browsers they need not worry about a competitor 
developing this technology, due to the barriers to the entry found 
by the trial court. At the present time, browsers can display text 
and graphics, but humans have to organize the information displayed. 
XML is like the West Key System organizing information into 
categories for easy retrieval and use. MS is trying to monopolize 
this standard also and with their three monopolies is likely to 
succeed.
    Browsers on non-PCs--;Microsoft has tried to force 
variations of IF. browser onto personal digital assistants (e.g. 
Palms) and cell phones, even though they are not suited for these 
devices. As a monopolist Microsoft has no incentive to develop a 
different type of browser for non-personal computers. If a company 
does develop such a non-PC system, Microsoft can move quickly to 
stop them, as they did with Web TV. Because of its huge monopoly 
profits, Microsoft was able to pay an extremely high price for this 
system that displayed website on TV. Once it controlled this 
potential competitor, Microsoft efforts to further develop this 
system fell short of the level expected when a non-monopolist 
invests that amount of money.
    Printing sophisticated pages--;Printed web pages and web 
pages on computer screens do not look the same. This causes 
tremendous

[[Page 28471]]

difficulties for Web Counsel and other web developers. Web 
developers are restricted to basic layouts, even when there would be 
significant advantages to a more sophisticated layout. The primary 
solution in this area is a non-Microsoft solution, Adobe Acrobat 
.pdf files. Microsoft does not see this system as a threat, because 
.pdf files are very difficult to create and use. Microsoft efforts 
to make printing web pages is minimal.
    Customizing feature--;Microsoft makes adjusting and 
customizing the Internet Explorer browser very difficult. If a 
company creates a browser based service that needs a customized 
browser, they must hire expensive programs and even then, 
customization is very limited. MS restricts API information, uses 
restrictive licensing and insists on maintaining IE's appearance.
    From the individual's user perspective, finding the places and 
understanding obscured references such as ``Use TLS 1.0'' 
or ``Show Friendly URLs'' means that most people will have 
to use their browsers the way Microsoft wants them to use it.
    Microsoft, like all monopolists, does not innovate, because they 
have no economic incentive to do so. Microsoft used to add 
innovative features to its browsers, albeit mostly copied from other 
companies, principally Netscape. Microsoft stopped making 
significant improvements once Netscape stopped innovating. Netscape 
stopped innovating, because Microsoft had used its monopoly to make 
sure that there was no money to be made in browsers.
    Microsoft already owns the browser market, why should they try 
to do something innovative, when their market share is much more 
likely to go down, than up.
    Ill. Microsoft's monopolies prevent fair competition and must 
controlled
    Microsoft has monopolies in not only the OS and the browser, but 
also in the Office Suite software. (This claim was originally made 
in the state's complaint, but later dropped to harmonize its 
complaint with the DOJ complaint.) These inter-locking monopolies 
give Microsoft even greater power than a normal monopolist.
    Microsoft's confidence in the power of their monopoly can be 
seen from their bail-outs of their competitors. Microsoft invested 
millions of dollars in Apple, the only significant operating system 
alternative, (although Apple's OS won't run on Intel processors.) 
Microsoft claimed it was an investment to support Apple, whose users 
bought Microsoft Office suite software for their Apple Macintoshes. 
While unlikely, Microsoft's true motivation became evident when they 
tried to prop-up Corel's WordPerfect office suite. Microsoft's 
effort to co-opt this competitor was so blatant, that regulators 
opposed Microsoft's investment and Microsoft withdrew there offer.
    Microsoft's competitors know that the Microsoft's monopolies 
have created a $36 billion treasure chest of monopoly profits. They 
also know that Microsoft will use these funds and the unlawful 
tactics outlined by the trial court to oppose anyone that should try 
to compete with them in their monopoly areas. These funds and 
Microsoft's hardball tactics scare away potential competitors and 
innovators. If the DOJ/Microsoft proposed settlement is accepted the 
perverse result will be that potential competitors will be even more 
discouraged, because they will see that Microsoft got no monetary 
penalty and was rewarded with a monopoly for using unlawful tactics. 
Even now venture capitalists reject out of hand any business plan 
that Microsoft might see as competing against their core monopolies.
    Since Microsoft has 3 inter-locking monopolies, the remedies 
must be more comprehensive and certain, particularly, since 
Microsoft has shown that they will not live up to the spirit of the 
settlement language and are likely to violate the actual letter of 
the settlement. While I support all of the relief requested by the 
nine dissenting states, I believe that Microsoft should also be 
subject to a substantial fine so that they do not benefit from, nor 
use their ill- gotten gains to unlawfully further their monopolies.
    IV. Enforcement
    The proposed Microsoft/DOJ enforcement procedure will do little 
to prevent improper actions by Microsoft. The voluntary dispute 
resolution procedure will not work. Microsoft will either not 
volunteer to be punished or more likely they will drag out such 
procedures and Microsoft will win because of the delay.
    Microsoft traditionally comes out with a major new OS about 
every three years (e.g. Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows XP [2001]). 
The success of these systems are determined in the first year, so as 
we have seen Microsoft has tried to constantly delay the present 
litigation and it has succeeded. The original complaint was filed by 
DOJ in May of 1998. In the meantime, Microsoft has come out with the 
minor OS upgrades Windows ME and Windows 2000 and the major new OS, 
Windows XP. None of these OS's have been restricted, by the DOJ and 
during this time Microsoft has continued to make extraordinary 
profits even during the recent down economy.
    The new Windows XP has several features that continue to 
unlawfully leverage Microsoft monopolies, e.g. the Passport system. 
While it is theoretically possible to run Windows XP without the 
Passport system, the average user will not be able to figure this 
out and the software repeatedly demands that the user sign-up for 
the Passport system and provide their private information to be put 
under Microsoft's control.
    If the court wants to do justice now, the final settlement must 
have a quick and certain arbitration procedure. Failure to include 
such a provision will result in Microsoft complying with the orders, 
but only after they are irrelevant. A clear example of this is the 
``concessions'' that Microsoft has made as to the web 
browser in the proposed DOJ/Microsoft settlement. Microsoft made the 
concessions because, its unlawful acts have won the browser battle. 
Microsoft is happy to concede, here and in other areas of the 
proposed settlement, points that don't restrict what it actually 
wants to do or that are irrelevant in the marketplace.
    Not only is speed essential, but the enforcement procedures must 
provide a way to expose Microsoft's efforts to intimidate third 
parties. Microsoft is notorious for threatening not only its 
competitors, but its customers, something that only a monopolist can 
do (e.g. threat to Compaq to cut off sales of Microsoft operating 
systems, see trial courts finding of facts.) Enforcement must 
include an anonymous reporting feature and substantial penalties 
swiftly enforced, otherwise Microsoft will continue its intimidation 
and accept its conduct penalty, if any, many years later after it is 
irrelevant.
    V. The DOJ/Microsoft proposal will only lead to more litigation
    Microsoft and its abuse of its monopoly have injured many 
parties, and regardless of how you rule, there will be substantial 
litigation as evidenced by the recent action brought by AOL/Time 
Warner against Microsoft. The AOL suit, however, also illustrates 
what will happen if the court adopts the proposed DOJ/Microsoft 
proposed settlement. Litigants, as has AOL, will move to further 
restrict the monopolist's actions; litigants will bring actions in 
the courts instead of through arbitration and Microsoft will delay 
this litigation for years. The resulting uncertainty will hurt the 
United States leadership in software at all levels.
    The software industry is not prone to litigation, but companies 
will be left with no options to protect themselves, if this court 
does not provide an adequate enforcement mechanism and fair 
settlement, that is perceived to be fair.
    VI. Java should be required
    The public interest and competitive fairness require that 
Microsoft provide a quality Java interpreter with every copy of 
their web browser. Much of the functionality, that we and other web 
developers have built into their websites is based on the Java 
language. If Microsoft gets away with not providing Java support in 
their browser, as they have already done with Windows
    XP, the results with not be in the public interest: tens of 
billions of dollars that have gone into programming sites in Java 
will be wasted tens of thousands of website will lose some or all of 
their functionality, and Microsoft will have another monopoly, this 
time in web languages. If nothing else, the DOJ/Microsoft proposed 
settlement, must be amended to require Java support.
    WE, THEREFORE request that you reject the revised proposed final 
judgment by the U.S. Department of Justice and Microsoft 
Corporation, and that you adopt the proposed judgement by 
California, Connecticut and the other dissenting states, that you 
impose a substantial monetary penalty on Microsoft for their 
unlawful acts, and that you grant such other relief as is requested 
herein and you may determine to be in the public interest.
    DATED this 28th day of January, 2002
    Mark Pruner
    President
    Web Counsel, LLC
    Stamford E-Center
    59 Broad Street
    Stamford, CT 06901
    203/969-;7900
    203/969-;7904 (fax)
    203/550-;0929 (cell)
    [email protected]
    http://www.webcounsel.com
    Our latest site http://www.gibbonslaw.com

[[Page 28472]]



MTC-00028904

From: rclay773281
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:52pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Robert Clayton
14085 Olympic View Road
Silverdale WA 98383
1/28/02
To Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Dept. of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington D.C. 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft
    I am writing you today to express my opinion in regards to the 
microsoft antitrust dispute.l am a microsoft supporter ,an d l would 
like to see this costly litigation ended against Microsoft.lt will 
serve in the best public interest to permanently resolve this 
issue.This settlement was reached after extensive negotiations with 
a court appointed mediator.Microsoft has agreed to all terms and 
conditions of this agreement .Under this agreement ,microsoft m,ust 
document its envied interfaces so other companies can use them to 
develop more sophisticated soft ware. Microsoft has also agreed to 
grant computer makers broad new rights to configure windows so that 
other companies can promote their products while windows boots up. 
Microsoft is more than willing to follow these procedures so they 
can get back to work.This settlement will serve in the best public 
interest.Our resources and time should be devoted to more pressing 
issues
    Thank you for your support.l might add that l have much more 
confidence in your ability than your predecessor
    Sincerely
    Robert Clayton
    [email protected]



MTC-00028905

From: Mike Searcy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has lost focus on the best interests of consumers. The 
company now places its own ends above those of the consumer. With 
some companies, this is often understandable and acceptable. 
However, Microsoft, as ruled by the court, monopolizes an integral 
component of the computing industry, an industry that has become a 
primary driving force in the national economy. Consequently, until 
Microsoft's monopoly is either no longer in place or is no longer 
viable, the interests of the consumer public must take precedent, 
and it is up to the government, as representatives of the people, to 
ensure that the best interests of consumers are pursued. And, while 
the current settlement agreement between the Department of Justice, 
nine state Attorneys General, and the Microsoft Corporation, does 
take some significant strides, it contains multiple loopholes that 
would cause little to no adjustment in the tactics of Microsoft, a 
company that has been proven to abuse the monopoly it holds and has 
been seen to exploit such ambiguities often with brazen disregard 
for the intent of the agreement in which they reside. One 
significant loophole, the failure to adequately define what is and 
what is not an operating system, is the focus of this letter.
    Computing and Commodities
    Commodities. They are the foundation of the computing industry. 
However, based on context, they can often go by other names such as 
objects, standards, and libraries. Simply put, commodoties create an 
environment in which something can be reused multiple times and 
interchanged easily. They are the cornerstone of the success of the 
IBM PC, the World Wide Web, object-oriented programming, and grid 
computing. They enable competition and promote innovation, often at 
amazing speed. They form the basis for the goal of permitting any 
device to work with any data at any time at any location and the 
hope of writing a program one time and have it run anywhere and on 
any device.
    When an individual goes out to purchase a personal computer, 
that person can choose from multiple PC vendors including Dell, 
Compaq, IBM, Hewlett-Packard, and Sony, to name a representative 
few. More often than not, he or she does not have to worry about 
whether or not the printer they purchased or the scanner they 
already own will work with the new PC in which they are investing. 
That is because the PCs from all of these manufacturers are based on 
a common, open architecture. The open architecture of these machines 
``commodotizes'' the machine itself, allowing them to be 
interchanged easily. This allows for a large degree of competition 
between the vendors, lowered prices for consumers, and expedited 
innovation. In fact, according to the Department of Commercel, PC 
prices fell 26 percent per year between 1995 and 1999 due to this 
rampant competition. When that individual is examining those PCs, 
they can choose between processors from both Intel and AMD. 
Generally speaking, he or she does not have to worry about whether 
or not the spreadsheet program they purchased or the service 
provider they are using to access the Internet supports the 
processor they are examining, as long as the Windows operating 
system supports it. In this case, the Windows operating system 
``commodotizes'' the processor. Once again, the consumer 
benefits from intense competition between the processor companies 
yielding lower prices and greater innovation. Processors run faster 
and cheaper now than ever before, and the bar seems to be raised by 
this competition on almost a weekly basis.
    When most people think of the Internet, they are actually 
thinking about only one component of the Internet, the World Wide 
Web. The success of the web is based on universal standards for the 
delivery and access of information. These standards 
``commodotize'' the sender and receiver of that 
information. If the standards are followed, the end user, the 
consumer, does not have to worry if the server he or she is 
accessing is running Microsoft Internet Information Server (IIS), 
Netscape Enterprise Server, Lotus Domino, IBM WebSphere, or Apache. 
The standards ``commodotize'' the web server. This enables 
significant competition in the web server space, allowing the buyer, 
the presenter of the data, to choose from any number of servers. 
And, thanks to this ``commodotization'', the growth of the 
Internet, in terms of individuals accessing it since the inception 
of the web, has increased faster than any other medium preceding it, 
truly yielding immense consumer benefit.
    The PC Operating System Commodity
    Following the same logic, there is no reason that consumers 
cannot realize the same degree of consumer benefit and innovation 
from competition in the PC operating system market. The PC OS can be 
``commodotized'' in the same way as the open PC hardware 
architecture, the PC processors, and the web servers mentioned 
above, yielding the same benefit to consumers and accelerating 
innovation. The methodology for sending data to and from a PC OS can 
be standardized following the same patterns as those detailed in the 
examples. When a consumer wants to run an application such as a word 
processor, speadsheet, or personal finance manager, he or she should 
not need to be concerned about the underlying operating system any 
more than he or she is concerned about the brand of the underlying 
PC or processor. It is an unnecessary level of complexity. This 
approach does not preclude competition in the PC OS space any more 
than it does in the PC, processor, and web server markets mentioned 
in the examples. In fact, it promotes it.
    However, while such ``commodotization'' of the PC OS 
yields the greatest consumer benefit in lowered prices, increased 
competition, and accelerated innovation, it does not allow Microsoft 
to retain the monopoly grasp on that market that it currently holds 
and the resultant high profit margins. Consequently, rather than 
working in pursuit of this goal on behalf of consumers, Microsoft 
continually works in opposition of it actually working to undermine 
it, leveraging its monopoly and using tactics such as 
``application integration'' to thwart this goal resulting 
in reduced consumer benefit, slowed innovation, and maintainence of 
artificially high prices.
    Achieving PC OS ``commodization'' is pursued in two 
different ways: (1) the development of middleware and (2) the 
restriction of what is and what is not a component of the operating 
system. Middleware is software that sits between the application and 
the operting system. Software developers write their applications to 
the middleware rather than to a particular OS. This allows an 
application to be written a single time and run on any operating 
system supported by the middleware. However, as the advantage of 
middleware is to allow portability of applications across operating 
systems, it is imperative that the middleware be separate from the 
OS. Examples of middleware are Java and the Internet browser. 
Applications written in Java or to the browser, should be accessible 
on multiple operating systems without needing rewrites. However, as 
mentioned, such an approach, while benefiting consumers and 
application developers, does not benefit Microsoft. Consequently, 
Microsoft has strived to undermine the former and control the 
latter. Bill Gates,

[[Page 28473]]

himself, realizes the benefits of middleware and articulates the 
intent of Microsoft to undermine it when he states in an email in 
January 1997, the following in regards to Java support in Windows. 
``To avoid middleware taking over an operating system you have 
to make sure the integrated services are different from the 
middleware--;otherwise the middleware approach has no 
disadvantages and it wins. I think the path we were going down of 
building on [Java's Abstract Window Toolkit (AWT)] was a sure 
disaster--;it was creating a situation where pure 100% Java 
applications would look just as good as pure Windows applications 
which we have to avoid.'' So, while pure Java applications 
looking as good as pure Windows applications would be a boon to 
consumers, it was undermined by Microsoft to protect its monopoly. 
An internet browser that could run on any operating system would 
present a universal platform for application development and a 
universal ``client'' for the consumer. However, such a 
universal client would undermine the Windows monopoly. Whereas 
Microsoft could have adjusted the OS to utilize the universal 
client, maintaining a separate browser client that could be ported 
to multiple operating systems, Microsoft chose instead to modify the 
browser client to accomodate the OS, thus eliminating the universal 
promise of the browser and destroying the resultant consumer benefit 
it would bring. These tactics could only be successful in an 
environment where there is no competition for the OS. Otherwise, 
consumers would flock to the OS that benefits them the most. In 
today's environment, Microsoft decides what is and what is not 
beneficial to the consumer. The consumer has no choice.
    Inter Alia, Among Other Things
    The current settlement agreement concentrates on addressing the 
middleware issue. However, it avoids addressing the second 
requirement of reaching the ``commoditized'' OS, a 
situation that is exploited by Microsoft in an increasingly frequent 
manner showing no indication of abating. To reach the goal of the 
``commoditized'' 0S, a strict definition is needed of what 
is and what is not part of the operating system. Without such a 
definition, with its monopoly in place, Microsoft can continually 
``integrate'' what is generally deemed as application 
software into the operating system in the same manner they have done 
with the browser. Two words in the text of the settlement agreement 
permit this tactic of Microsoft to continue unabated to the 
detriment of consumers. ``Inter Alia''. They are found in 
the definitions section of the agreement within the definition of an 
``Operating System'' (Section VI, Paragraph P.). With 
these two words in place, Microsoft can ``integrate'' 
anything and everything it sees fit into the operating system. This 
is easily seen in the latest iteration of its Windows operating 
system, Windows XP, where Microsoft has ``integrated'' its 
version of media ``application'' software into the OS. 
While there are benefits of integration, they are shortsighted and 
self-serving and do not present the greatest benefit to consumers. 
For instance, a manufacturer could produce a part that works 
specifically on a 2002 Ford Thunderbird. The benefit is that the 
part works wonderfully on that one car, as it is custom-made for 
that vehicle. However, how much better off is the consumer if the 
part is made to work on 50 different vehicles as opposed to the one? 
Immensely. Integrating application code into the OS is no different 
and yields the same results. Consumers benefit only in the short 
term and only as long as they continue to use the one OS to which 
the application code has been welded. Is the integration necessary? 
Not at all. Is it self-serving to the OS owner? Most definitely. Is 
it in the best interests of consumers? Not a chance.
    Not only is the integration unwise from a usability perspective, 
it also leads to higher prices. How much cheaper can a single part 
be mass-produced for 50 different vehicles as opposed to a custom 
part for each one? The custom, integrated part is always more 
expensive. However, in this case, the consumer is blissfully 
ignorant of these unnecessarily higher prices for no other reason 
than we are all driving Thunderbirds, and the excessively high price 
of the part is ``integrated'' in the cost of the overall 
car. To date, the measuring stick for allowing Microsoft to 
integrate code into its OS is whether or not the integration 
benefits consumers. This is the wrong approach. As we have seen, 
there will always be an argument for how the integration benefits 
the consumer. However, the question should be, ``Of all of the 
options available, does the integration option present the best 
option for consumers?'' Using this question as a guide, forced 
integration into an OS will rarely, if ever, be the best option for 
consumers.
    With the above in mind, a specific definition of a PC operating 
system is necessary. I am not presumptuous enough to believe that I 
am capable of providing such a definition. However, I would envision 
that a group of experts taken from multiple areas of the industry 
could generate such a definition given the task. Undoubtedly, such a 
definition would require modifications to Microsoft's existing 
operating systems or could be enforced for all future versions. 
However, having such a definition in place, along with the allowance 
of middleware, could open the door wide for true competition in the 
PC OS space while setting the foundation for immense, long-term 
consumer benefit, benefits that will easily fall by the wayside 
without it.
    Regards,
    Michael P. Searcy
    Tampa, FL



MTC-00028906

From: Harry Yamamoto
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    The remedies for the Microsoft Settlement must be fair but not 
so disruptive that competitive innovations would have no platform to 
work from. If the government kills off Microsoft the cost will be 
tremendous for everyone to switch to ????? The ``unfair 
competition'' seems inherently a part of the nature of these 
relatively new technologies. If there were not basic uniform 
operating systems the information technology business would not 
exist. If Microsoft was more aggressive and kept a ``closed 
system'' similar to Apple Computer where would competition be? 
Apple has a significant share of the PC market. Where are the 
others? If Microsoft were not innovative and added features we could 
still using Visacalc and be playing Pong.
    Many of the software companies calling foul should have 
approached this business problem with a different tact. Their 
efforts to tag along behind the leaders will always be a 
disadvantage. The government must not punish the leaders of an 
industry just to help the weak companies that are just along for the 
ride. In the beginning I was a very strong Apple supporter, but I 
needed integrated products that could be used economically so I 
switched to PCs and Microsoft software. The need for uniformity and 
connectiveness breeds the necessity to be able to work across 
different platforms. Users need products that work and are also 
convenient. (To save time and expense.)
    Harry Yamamoto
    5573 Road U SE
    Warden, WA 98857
    Phone (509) 349-;2435



MTC-00028907

From: Neal Stobaugh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
4030 148th Avenue NE
Redmond, WA 98052
January 28, 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 full support of the recent settlement 
between Microsoft and the US Department of Justice. I am glad to see 
they had reached a settlement and that Microsoft will be allowed to 
start focusing on business, not politics.
    I do believe that the terms of the settlement are fair and will 
ultimately have a positive effect on the consumer and small 
businessperson. Microsoft's concessions, such as agreeing not to 
retaliate against computer makers and software developers who 
develop or promote products that compete with Microsoft, or granting 
computer makers broad new rights to configure Windows so that non-
Microsoft products can be promoted more easily, should appease all 
the competitors.
    I urge your office to do what is right for the American public. 
Implement the settlement. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Neal Stobaugh



MTC-00028908

From: Lynnie D. Velarde
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Attorney General: Attached is my letter of opinion for the 
settlement between the Department of Justice and Microsoft.

[[Page 28474]]

    Sincerely,
    Manuel B. Velarde

Manuel B. Velarde
8902 Leemore Court
Louisville, KY 40241
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to show my support for the settlement in the 
Microsoft antitrust case. Your efforts in supporting the settlement 
I gratefully welcome. Microsoft has basically agreed to what was 
asked of it, as well as agreed to some terms that were not even 
addresses in the original complaints. Now is the time to move on 
toward renewed innovation and improvement in the American computer 
technology industry.
    The settlement will lead to Microsoft working more closely with 
its partners in the software industry than it already does. 
Microsoft will document and disclose the internal code for the 
interfaces of its Windows programs some other industry companies can 
make their programs work more efficiently with Windows. Microsoft 
will provide computer makers a list of established, uniform terms 
and prices so everyone will know what the deal is, rather than 
negotiate privately. A technical committee of software experts will 
monitor Microsoft to ensure that the terms of the settlement are 
met. These are big concessions and compromises of Microsoft's legal 
rights to cooperate with its industry and resolve the court case.
    I appreciate, and thank you for, your efforts to see that this 
beneficial settlement is approved. Your leadership is appreciated.
    Sincerely,
    Dr. Manuel B. Velarde



MTC-00028909

From: John A. Beatson III
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Thank you for this opprotunity to voice my opinion.
    The Microsoft settlement solution offered by the Justice 
Department is a sham, window dressing to cover a decision to back 
out of the whole enterprise. The settlement is so weak as to be 
meaningless. Remeadiation to those who were harmed virtualy non-
existant. Enforcement mechanizms are flimsey and will be 
ineffectual.
    The Justice Department tried to enforce an agreement with 
Microsoft with a weak settlement in the past. They failed because 
the enforcement mechanizms relied on good faith by Microsoft instead 
of effective rules and procedures. The result was a further 
solidification of the Microsoft monopoly, companies and products 
driven from the market place, and an outrage from the government 
that was embarassing given that a blind man could have seen it 
coming.
    Don't repeat history. The only effective settlement is one where 
the remedy fixes the problem and the required remedial actions can 
be enforced. Enforcement can not rely on good faith by Microsoft, 
not then, not now, not ever.



MTC-00028910

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I urge you to accept this settlement.



MTC-00028911

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
    Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt 
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
    Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon 
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little 
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft 
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by 
Microsoft: the computer user.
    This is just another method for states to get free money, and a 
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer 
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic 
industry the world has ever seen.
    Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Tom Howe
    1033 NW 9th
    Moore, OK 73160-;1811



MTC-00028912

From: Frank Murphree
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
828 Cooke Street
West Helena, AR 72390-;1409
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am happy to hear the Microsoft case has settled. I urge the 
Judge reviewing the case to approve the settlement so all parties 
may focus on more important matters.
    While I do not agree with the government's taking action against 
Microsoft in the first place, I am in favor of the settlement. Its 
terms are reasonable, and are in the public interest. Consumers will 
benefit from the settlement, as Microsoft will be free to go about 
its business producing quality software. Microsoft's competitors 
will clearly benefit from the agreement. They will be made privy to 
Microsoft's otherwise confidential operating information. They will 
also benefit from Microsoft's agreement to make it easier for 
computer manufacturers to install other company's software on their 
computers.
    The settlement will also provide much needed certainty to the 
tech industry. This can only help our American economy, especially 
in a time of recession. I am hopeful this matter will come to a 
speedy resolution. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Frank Murphree



MTC-00028913

From: John Brugger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:59pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    it is my opinion that the settlement proposed by the company is 
ultimately the best solution for all concerned.



MTC-00028914

From: Lydia G. Rich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
35 Hyatt Drive
Warren, PA 16365-;3527
January 10, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my support in the recent settlement 
between Microsoft and the federal government. It is with sincere 
hope that this is the end of any litigation on the federal level. 
Considering the terms of the agreement, Microsoft did not get off 
easy at all. In fact, due to this agreement, Microsoft has to make 
several important changes to the way that they handle their 
business.
    For example, Microsoft has agreed to disclose and document for 
use by its competitors various interfaces that are internal to 
Windows'' operating system products. This alone is a first in 
an antitrust settlement. Microsoft has also agreed to make available 
to its competitors, any protocols implemented in Windows'' 
operating system products that are used to interoperate natively 
with any Microsoft server operating system.
    With the many terms of the agreement, I see no reason for the 
government to pursue further litigation on any level against 
Microsoft. Not only would it be a waste of time, but a waste of 
money as well. I fully trust that you would agree. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Lydia Rich
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00028915

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:00pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
James W. McCoy
RR 3 Box 3412
Naples, TX 75568
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I write to you today to express my support of the recent 
settlement reached between the Department of Justice and Microsoft. 
It is my understanding that at the end of January the Attorney 
General will decide whether or not to enact the terms of the 
settlement. This is

[[Page 28475]]

a very important decision. I believe that enacting the settlement 
would be the most beneficial course for our country, economy, and 
technology industry.
    The terms of the settlement call for the creation of a technical 
review committee. This committee will have the job of overseeing 
Microsoft's action. They will ensure that Microsoft complies with 
the terms of the settlement agreement. This should ease those who 
fear Microsoft's compliance.
    I hope that the Department of Justice enacts this settlement 
quickly.
    Sincerely
    James McCoy



MTC-00028916

From: Harlan Wilkerson
To: Microsoft ATR, 
[email protected]@
inetgw
Date: 1/28/02 7:02pm
Subject: Proposed Settlement (with corrections)
    I feel that adoption of the proposed settlement is not in the 
public interest.
    The Appeals Court 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.''
    Windows has gained it's market position not by consumer demand, 
but by Microsoft's almost total control of production. In the past, 
Microsoft has used exclusive OEM licensing and marketing incentives 
to pass along the so-called ``Microsoft tax'' to every PC 
consumer. Most of the top 20 OEMs simply don't offer PC systems 
without the Windows operating system pre-installed. Microsoft has 
urged (and rewarded) the OEMs to ``just say no'' to buyers 
who request a so called ``naked PC'' (a PC with no pre-
installed software). This is ironic since the OEM's associated 
support costs should actually be reduced. The OEMs that do offer 
alternatives to Microsoft's Windows charge essentially the same 
price for non-Windows models. This is true even for those with pre-
installied versions of absolutely free operating systems e.g. Linux, 
or the BSDs. These operating systems can be freely downloaded and 
installed on all of a consumers PCs without any licensing fee 
whatsoever. Consumers who have opted to install these free operating 
systems (on their own) are usually frustrated in any attempt to 
obtain refunds from the OEMs for their unused Windows licenses. This 
despite provisions for a refund from the OEM that are contained in 
the Microsoft Windows EULA. It's no accident that consumers can't 
determine the fair price of a PC under these circumstances. This was 
highlighted during the trial by a grass roots movement that 
culminated in a ``Windows Refund Day''. Consumers who 
purchase Microsoft Windows through an OEM usually have no standing 
in class action suits brought against Microsoft.
    Nothing in the proposed settlement prohibits Microsoft from 
continuing to offer OEMs existing forms of advertising or marketing 
incentives (on an equitable basis) to include Windows on every 
machine, or to decline to sell ``naked PCs''. We currently 
are in the worst economic recession in at least a decade. It's 
doubtful that some of todays OEMs will even survive. Nonetheless, 
many of these same ``equipment manufacturers'' won't sell 
their equipment at any price without pre-installed software from 
Microsoft. This is hardly the behavior of an unfettered market. 
Microsoft should be required to post the costs of it's OEM products 
on a public web site, and they should be precluded from offerring 
any incentives to OEMs to curtail the sales of ``naked 
PCs''.
    To paraphrase the Appeals Court by the time this case is 
resolved the facts will be ancient history, but the effects of the 
illegal acts will have caused harm nonetheless. The proposed remedy 
does nothing to ``deny to the defendant the fruits of its 
statutory violation''. Microsoft staunchly denies any wrong 
doing in it's public statements, retains billions in capital, and 
isn't even held liable for the people's costs in prosecuting the 
case.
    In crafting a remedy that terminates the illegal monopoly or 
eliminates practices likely to result in monopolization in the 
future it is important that hearings be held to investigate how we 
got here in the first place. The Federal Trade Commission and DOJ 
took up Microsoft's trade practices involving OEM per-machine-
licensing of MSDOS. During this case a private antitrust suit was 
brought against Microsoft by Caldera. That suit was settled but 
provided no relief for the millions of consumers who purchased 
Digital Research's Disk Operating System. Digital publicly 
complained that they had sufferred from Microsoft's anticompetitive 
per-machine-licensing scheme and were wrongly excluded from the 
Windows 3.1 beta testing program--;even though they were 
participants in beta testing earlier versions of Windows. Digitat's 
Operating system didn't compete with Windows, but did compete with 
MSDOS. At the time these were separate Microsoft retail products. 
The respected magazine and online publication Dr Dobbs Journal 
revealed that the Windows 3.1 beta contained code that was only 
useful for detecting Digital Research DOS. This code gave the user 
error messages or simply halted a users machine whenever Digital 
Research DOS was detected. Windows version 4 and MSDOS version 7 
were eventually bundled into Windows 95 which carried exclusive OEM 
license agreements that didn't permit OEMs to use or dual boot other 
operating systems like Digital's DOS. For example, some Hitachi PCs 
had a hidden copy of the BeOS that consumers could only discover and 
activate using instructions on Hitachi's web site. Digital, Hitachi 
and BeOS have since exited the PC OEM and PC Operating system 
business. For it's part the DOJ has complained publicly that 
Microsoft violated the first consent agreement. The practice of 
monopolies denying companies that compete in any software category 
timely access to APIs, and the practice of bundling separate retail 
products for anticompetitive reasons, and/or using exclusive 
licensing agreements to harm competitors is a common and recurring 
theme. The judge was correct in denying Microsoft's request to limit 
the scope of the remedies without an evidentiary hearing, and the 
DOJ was premature in dropping their case in-main on product 
bundling. Microsoft is engaged in world-wide trade and the DOJ and 
European antitrust regulators seem uncoordinated and out of step. 
The European regulators have taken up complaints that Microsoft has 
withheld access to Windows server software API's that are necessary 
for interoperability with other network operating systems, and the 
bundling of Windows Media Player in Windows XP. Microsoft is not so 
quietly announcing it's plans for a single Internet logon 
authentication service it's calling ``.NET''. The stated 
objective of this initiative is to leverage the Windows monoply in 
order to create a new (Internet) monopoly. While these practices may 
or may not be lawful, it's doubtful that all of the practices likely 
to result in monopolization in the future have been eliminated 
without a single hearing on the issues here in our courts. Most non-
Microsoft operating systems provide a boot manager that allows 
consumers to use several operating systems. In fact, Microsoft 
includes a boot manager that allows consumers to use multiple 
(older) versions of Windows e.g. Windows 2000 and Windows 98. The 
act of installing a Microsoft operating system doesn't invalidate a 
consumers licenses for a competitors products. Yet installing (or 
reinstalling) Microsoft Windows will always result in a consumers 
other operating systems becoming inaccessible. This is 
anticompetitive behavior. Microsoft should be required to 
automatically add other operating systems to it's boot manager in 
the same manner that it adds it's own products.
    The DOJ and Microsoft appear to have forgotten that this case is 
about Personal Computers if a consumer shops for a PC, and makes a 
purchase based on the software selection, it makes no sense to 
provide Microsoft the arbitrary right within fourteen days (or some 
other later date) to delete icons or programs and substitute their 
own because they have judged the competitors product lacking in some 
quality or state they deem essential.
    Microsoft has stated that their power to innovate or bundle 
applications into Windows XP is essential to the economic recovery 
of the PC industry. The PC OEMs have testified that there is no 
viable alternative to Windows. In the past year alone private 
business LANs and Internet companies have suffered billions of 
dollars in damages caused by trojan or virus programs that 
specifically targeted Windows PCs. The Executive and Legislative 
branches of the Federal Government have recognized the Internet as a 
vital piece of our national and international infrastructure. They 
have established agencies tasked with it's protection. Indeed one 
reason for pursuing the proposed settlement after September 11 was 
``the national interest'' It's hard to understand why much 
of Microsoft's ill gotten monopoly shouldn't be considered an 
essential public facility. Certainly consumers have a right to 
migrate their own itellectual property out of proprietary Microsoft 
file formats. Microsoft should be required to publish the file 
format information needed

[[Page 28476]]

for other applications to interoperate with files created by MS 
Office. This is certainly the case with regard to Apple Computer 
users who have already been threatened with the cancellation of the 
Apple version of MS Office. In conclusion, the court combined the 
individual State and DOJ cases. A settlement that doesn't include 
half the plaintiffs is at best not a settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Harlan L. Wilkerson
    Hutchinson, KS. 67501



MTC-00028917

From: Peggy Broyles
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:00pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Dear Mr. ASHCROFT;
    It is good to see the Justice Department has ended its long and 
very costly antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft. Microsoft has 
produced wonderful software for the world. They should be allowed to 
continue.
    No more action should be taken at the federal level against 
Miicrosoft.
    Thank you ,
    Arthur & Peggy Broyles



MTC-00028918

From: Howard Griffen
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 6:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Howard Griffen
1436 Baytowne Circle E
Destin, FL 32550
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 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,
    Howard Griffen



MTC-00028919

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mary Breivik
25010-;38th Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am in favor of Microsoft and the Department of Justice 
settling in the case. The settlement agreement the two sides reached 
in November adequately addresses the concerns raised by the case's 
plaintiffs. There is really no need to spend any more money on 
litigating this case.
    I really appreciate the way Microsoft has handled itself 
throughout the case. It has answered the allegations of unfair 
business tactics by making fundamental changes to key aspects of its 
operations. It will license Windows to the 20 largest computer-
manufacturing companies at the same price and on the same terms. 
Additionally, Microsoft agreed to grant computer manufacturers the 
right to change the configuration of Windows. This will allow the 
manufacturers to replace features of Windows with software programs 
designed by Microsoft's competitors, which will give consumers a 
greater choice of products.
    The settlement agreement is the appropriate remedy to the 
complaints lodged against Microsoft, and, in fact, it goes beyond 
the scope of the original suit. Microsoft has demonstrated good 
faith in agreeing to the settlement terms. Nothing more will be 
gained by dragging this case back to the courts.
    Thank you for your attention.
    Sincerely,
    Mary Breivik



MTC-00028920

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    As an IT (Information Technology) professional for 35 years, I 
offer the following opinion.
    Microsoft has never been an innovator, but always an imitator 
who targets successful technologies developed by others and then 
competes with them on the heavily skewed playing field of 
Microsoft's monopoly control of the PC operating system.
    Because of the explosive rate of change in IT hardware so far, 
there has always been room for innovation by outsiders despite 
attempts by any entity to control or monopolize any technology. This 
has created an unprecedented climate of innovation and competition 
in most IT areas, empowering users with the tools to maximize their 
output.
    However, in the specific field of PC operating systems, this has 
not happened. Most users have been hobbled with operating systems 
from Microsoft which are far behind other systems available in ease 
of use, ease of maintenance, portability, stability, transparency, 
security, efficiency, etc. This has been possible because of the 
abuse of the monopoly position that Microsoft has in the PC 
operating system arena.
    If very strong corrective measures are not implemented in the 
very near future, Microsoft will have achieved a monopoly position 
over all software used by most PC, Internet, and Communications 
Device users with the result that competition and thus innovation 
will be extremely limited, and costs and capabilities will be 
determined solely by Microsoft instead of the free market.
    The current settlement proposal by the USDOJ is not adequate, 
and should be enhanced to include the original demands made by the 
prosecutors of this suit.



MTC-00028921

From: hap
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:03pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
109 Hosmer Street
Hudson, MA 01749-;3246
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I am wish to express my support for the settlement reached in 
the government's case against Microsoft. It's time to end this this. 
I want the government to stop hounding Microsoft so they can 
continue to innovate, create more jobs, provide more innovative 
products, and otherwise help our economy recover just like President 
Bush wants us to.
    Before Microsoft created the Windows product only the 
technically adept were able to use a computer not to mention the 
internet. Lets be fair but let's not overly punish a company for 
being aggressive and competitive. I urge that the government accept 
the settlement as it has been drafted. Let's get on with business we 
certainly have many other important challenges to tackle. Let's work 
together to improve our economy and keep the United States free of 
terrorism.
    Please help us
    Sincerely,
    Richard Lefebvre
    email copy: Representative Marty Meehan



MTC-00028922

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice:
    Please accept the settlement of the Microsoft case. This country 
has been through enough distractions. Let's see if Microsoft can use 
their engery to create software to help in this war on terrorism. I 
bet they will be on the cutting edge of this fight on terrorism and 
military deployment logistics, etc.
    They do not need any more time and money spent in court to 
defend their company.
    Thank you and God Bless America.
    Carl Munson,
    CEO Bay Coffee Service,
    Corpus Christi, Texas

[[Page 28477]]



MTC-00028923

From: Carl Schnurr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enclosed please find my comments on the ongoing MS litigation.
    Carl

Carl Schnurr
Group Program Manager, Microsoft
Salt Lake Games
8071 S 865 E
Sandy, UT 84094-;0697
January 24,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I find it hard to believe that the state of Utah has the time or 
the money to pursue litigation against Microsoft. Our projected 
deficit for this year is nearly two hundred million dollars, and no 
good can come of further time in the federal courts. My state, along 
with eight more of the eighteen plaintiff states in the Microsoft 
antitrust case, are currently seeking to overturn a perfectly 
reasonable settlement in the hopes of making more of a profit for 
themselves. I am writing to express my dismay, not only that the 
suit has gone on this long, but also that there is the possibility 
that it may drag out even longer. Microsoft, the Justice Department, 
and the plaintiff states are not the only parties that have felt the 
negative effects of this suit--;the economy has declined even 
further, the consumer has suffered, and progress within certain 
aspects of the technology industry has lagged. I do not believe that 
the pursuit of further litigation is in anyone's best interest.
    The settlement that Microsoft and the Justice Department have 
managed to reach is fair and reasonable. Microsoft has agreed, for 
example, to reformat future versions of Windows so that non-
Microsoft software will be supported within the Windows operating 
system. Moreover, Microsoft plans to document and disclose various 
source code, interfaces, and protocols integral and native to the 
Windows operating system to facilitate customizability within 
Windows and to allow non-Microsoft servers to interoperate natively 
with Microsoft servers. Microsoft's competitors will be able not 
only to use Windows as a platform to market their own software, they 
will also have the opportunity to reconfigure Windows so as to 
promote their own programs. I believe the settlement is just. I see 
no need to pursue additional litigation on the federal level. This 
has gone on far too long already. I urge you to support the 
settlement and finalize it as soon as possible.
    Sincerely,
    Carl Schnurr



MTC-00028924

From: Donald Delahaut
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The attachment was faxed to Mr. Ashcroft on 1/27/02 about 
9:30pm.
Donald Delahaut
260 Fernledge Drive
New Kensington, PA 15068-;4614
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing today to encourage the Department of Justice to 
accept the Microsoft antitrust settler member of the technology 
industry, I warn to see Microsoft and the industry to move on The 
suit on for over three years and has caused great damage [o the. 
entire industry. Some say that Microsoft is being treated leniently 
In fact the agreement is quite tough Microsoft document and 
disclose, for use by its competitors, various interfaces flint are 
internal to Windows'' system products. Microsoft is virtually 
handing over their company secrets to their competitors, getting off 
easy in order to move forward Microsoft b giving in to a lot The 
terms of the settlement are fair and t. accepted.
    CC Senator Rick Santorum, Representative Melissa A. Hart



MTC-00028925

From: John Heine
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John J. Heine
751 Emerald Drive
Lancaster, PA 17603
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am e-mailing to you today to express my support of the recent 
settlement between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. After 
three long years, the settlement is long overdue. As a corporation, 
Microsoft made concessions above and beyond what was necessary. 
Although litigation was unnecessary in the first place, it is best 
to let the issue rest with this settlement.
    Again, the settlement sets terms that are beyond the scope of 
the original litigation. The disclosure of internal interfaces is an 
example of the generous nature of this settlement on behalf of 
Microsoft. Under this provision, Microsoft is documenting all of the 
internal interfaces on the Windows'' operating system products. 
These documents are being forwarded to competitors of Microsoft for 
their review. This is unprecedented in any type of antitrust 
legislation. Further, it is proof of Microsoft's desire to settle 
the issue. This haste is imperative.
    Letting the settlement stand will enable Microsoft, the 
technology industry, and our economy to recover. In this time of 
economic unrest, this should be the focus of our government's 
efforts. I trust that no more action against Microsoft should be 
taken at the federal level.
    Sincerely,
    John J Heine
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00028926

From: Robert Habas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:04pm
Subject: Antitrust Settlement with Microsoft
    The government antitrust settlement with Microsoft lacks 
effective enforcement and it fails to prohibit a number of 
anticompetitive licensing practices. It's taking away the chance for 
real competition in the operating system market.



MTC-00028927

From: saeed bhatti
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:05pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    My name is Saeed Bhatti and am resident of New Jersey. I came to 
know through a very close friend about some of the aspects of the 
Proposed Settlement made by the Justice Department with Microsoft, 
and I am very unhappy. Firstly, how could the Justice Department 
grant Microsoft a government-mandated monopoly of the software 
industry and even worse--;other technology markets? Definitely 
such decision would seriously jeopardize all serious 
competitors--;both now and in the future. We're living in a free 
and open market society, and one of the advantages of having such a 
system is that people have the right to choose from among several 
brands of one single item, and in this case, software. I would want 
to see a healthy competition of several software companies, in order 
to make prices competitive as well. Secondly, how could the Justice 
Department condone Microsoft for violating the antitrust law and 
even for its illegal conduct e.g. bribing other competitors in order 
to stop their operation. What is the Justice Department's motive 
behind this action?
    Your Honor, I would want Microsoft be brought to justice 
upholding to democratic values. Sadly to say that monoplies are the 
trade mark of monarchs and communist governments.
    Very Truly,
    Saeed Bhatti



MTC-00028928

From: ruthweeb
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing in full support of the recent settlement between 
the US Department of Justice and Microsoft in the antitrust case. I 
feel this case has gone far too long and I can hardly believe what 
we as taxpayers have paid to have this continued. I believe the 
terms of the settlement is very fair and certainly does not let 
Micro- soft off easy. They stipulate that Microsoft will have to 
disclose interfaces and protocols that are internal to Windows 
operating system products. They also will be granting computer 
makers broad new rights to configure Windows so that non- Microsoft 
products can be promoted more easily.

[[Page 28478]]

    The nine states that want to continue litigation should be 
reprimanded and the settlement should be implemented as soon as 
possible. Please do what is best for the American public by ending 
this dispute. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Ruth I. Weeber
    3557 Sunridge Drive South
    Salem, Oregon 97302
    [email protected]



MTC-00028929

From: Renate Wilford
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 7:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renate Wilford
3548 Florian Terrace
Palm Harbor, FL 34685-;2663
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 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,
    Renate Wilford



MTC-00028930

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel the provisions of the agreement are fair. The case should 
be settled and let Microsoft go about their business--;which is 
one of the most successful businesses in the United States. Get off 
their back.
    Aline Gregory
    6451 E. Sugarloaf St.
    Mesa, AZ 85215



MTC-00028931

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:06pm
Subject: Microsoft antitrust deal
To: Renata Hese
    I'm writitng this letter in response to the microsoft anti trust 
case that is still pending. I have to say as a consumer there's no 
question that Microsoft still has a monopoly on the personal 
computer and the verdict's established by the DOJ did little to stop 
microsoft from controlling the OS system market. I really think the 
DOJ should of done more to protect the consumer from falling into 
the hands of microsoft's control. My solution to this problem is 
that law's should be set on how pc computers are sold and what 
applications can be preloaded so that consumers can have more 
choice. If you go into a store to buy a pc obviously you going to 
have to buy MS windows O/S whether you like it or not. Because 
Microsoft control's the operating system they control the software 
market. Laws should be set that computers have to be sold with out 
the Windows system installed so that consumers can purchase the 
windows software they wan't not what comes on the computer. In the 
software market if you don't get your product's pre-installed on 
computers you can't compete in a fair open market. This to me is the 
solution to the problem and everybody want's to compete in a fair 
market. I hope this brings some closure to this case and everybody 
can win from it.
    Thank You for your time.
    Roy Ringgenberg



MTC-00028932

From: Charles Dorian
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Charles Dorian
3521 255th Lane SE #19
Issaquah, WA 98029
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I support the Department of Justice's recent efforts to settle 
the Microsoft antitrust lawsuit. Continued litigation of this case 
is not in anyone's best interest. I urge you to take steps to ensure 
an expedient resolution of this lawsuit.
    The terms of the settlement agreement are fair and reasonable. 
Microsoft has agreed to a wide range of restrictions on the way it 
conducts business. They have agreed not to retaliate against those 
who promote software that competes with Windows. They have also 
agreed to implement a uniform price list for the licensing of 
Windows and to be monitored by a technical review committee that 
will ensure Microsoft's compliance with the settlement agreement. 
The settlement agreement accomplishes the goal of increasing 
competition. Pursuing this case through more trial will not produce 
a better result. Accordingly, it is strongly recommended that the 
Department of Justice approve the settlement agreement.
    I am a computer owner for more than twenty years who has used 
many companies programs in my business and personal activities. I am 
knowledgeable of the issues involved in this case.
    Thank you for considering my comments on this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Charles Dorian



MTC-00028933

From: JACK MILLS
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    PLEASE ACCEPT THE ATTACHMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE MICROSOFT 
SETTLEMENT.
    REGARDS,
    JACK MILLS



MTC-00028934

From: C. Dean Larsen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I don't think the federal government and some of the other 
states which are included should settle with Microsoft under the 
current proposed terms. Microsoft has been a market predator! It has 
and continues to use its vastly superior position to unfairly 
dominate and illegally disadvantage small software companies. 
Microsoft will continue to do so after the current proposed 
settlement just as the tobacco industry has done. Fortunately, there 
are still many states unwilling to settle under the current proposed 
terms.
    Sincerely yours,
    Dean Larsen



MTC-00028935

From: Floyd, Terry (DHS)
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 7:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer whose livelihood 
depends on the continuing success of the company. As such, you'd 
think I'd be one of the people cheering most loudly for Microsoft to 
prevail in this long and difficult antitrust case. My own self-
interest aside, however, I truly believe that Microsoft has done a 
great deal of harm to their competitors and the information 
technology industry as a whole through their insidious behavior. 
Beyond that, the more I learn about Microsoft's products, the less 
impressed I am with the quality of their technology. Just because 
they are the most successful software company in the world does not 
mean they make the best products. In many cases, their competitors 
have superior products, but they have so little power in the 
marketplace that they are struggling to survive in the current 
economic climate.
    It has been proven beyond doubt that Microsoft violated the law 
with many of their business practices. Many other questionable 
practices that I have seen them implement over the past five to ten 
years were not even addressed during the antitrust trial. Microsoft 
is even now trying to prevent a competing product named Lindows from 
ever coming to market. Lindows is a new distribution of the open 
source Linux operating system that will have embedded WINE 
capabilty, allowing it to run Windows applications in a Linux 
environment. This is a truly innovative product with the potential 
to be quite

[[Page 28479]]

successful. But Microsoft has filed a lawsuit against the small 
company that is developing Lindows, claiming that the very name of 
the product infringes upon their trademarked Windows operating 
system. Personally, I can see no way this suit can succeed, and I 
hope the judge who hears the case throws it out as being without 
merit, but Microsoft has the power and the resources to crush any 
and all of their competitors. Lindows is a small start-up company 
with a great idea, but few resources. Microsoft could use its legal 
warchest consisting of almost limitless money and attorneys to keep 
the product from ever being available to customers. So much for our 
freedom of choice.
    Moreover, I believe Microsoft has violated other provisions of 
the Tunney act to lobby the government on its behalf. Last week, I 
received in the mail a brochure from a group named ``Americans 
for Technology Leadership'' which urged me to send an email to 
[email protected] to support Microsoft 
against attacks by their competitors. I normally throw these kinds 
of junk mail brochures in the garbage, but later that same day, I 
received a telephone call from someone at Americans for Technology 
Leadership who also urged me to send an email to voice my support 
for Microsoft and its struggle to ``innovate.'' Now, being 
a curious fellow, I decided to visit the website of Americans for 
Technology Leadership at http://www.techleadership.org. I guess I 
shouldn't have been surprised that the site was cluttered with 
Microsoft advertisements. This group, a supposedly 
``independent'' organization of companies and individuals 
dedicated to limiting government regulation of technology, is 
actually funded primarily by Microsoft. I have a feeling that ATL 
had access to the names, addresses and phone numbers of all 
Microsoft Certified Professionals and was calling us to rally our 
support behind the company.
    I don't really know whether or not this activity violates any 
laws, but I resent being used as a pawn in this legal circus. I urge 
you to take strong action against Microsoft to prevent them from 
using their monopoly power to prevent other companies from 
developing and marketing products and services that compete with 
their offerings. I believe in free minds and free markets and in the 
long run, I do believe the best products will prevail. If these 
products happen to come from Microsoft, then they deserve to 
succeed. But if such products come from Novell, or Red Hat, Caldera, 
or Sun, or Oracle or even Lindows, then these products at least 
deserve an equal chance to succeed.
    I for one, will be one of the first in line to purchase Lindows 
if Microsoft will ever allow it to reach the marketplace.
    Terry Floyd, MCSE, MCDBA, CNA
    Associate Information Systems Analyst
    California Department of Health Services
    Division of Communicable Disease Control
    Information Technology Unit
    Phone: (510) 540-;2866
    Pager: (510) 382-;4814



MTC-00028936

From: dunmu ji
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 7:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft is a company who is doing business and has people's 
trust. Making Microsoft uglier and pay to competitor will not save 
the economy that has been not good for two years. Should dotcoms or 
any ``bubble'' company sue Microsoft for their lose since 
anybody was/is using computer software? Many bad news from big 
companies have already been damaged people's confident about the 
economy. Get the Microsoft case to be settled as soon as possible.
    We need go on.
    Xiaoping Ji



MTC-00028937

From: Chris Maynard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Good Evening,
    I am writing to comment on the Microsoft trial. While I had 
planned to send my own comments, I found them already written at the 
website below. http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html In short, I 
do not believe that the proposed settlement will be successful in 
stopping Microsoft from enjoying and profiting from their monopoly.
    Thank you,
    Chris Maynard
    Systems Admin Flippin,
    Densmore, Morse, & Jessee
    [email protected]



MTC-00028938

From: Robert Habas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:08pm
Subject: Antitrust Settlement with Microsoft
    The government antitrust settlement with Microsoft lacks 
effective enforcement and it fails to prohibit a number of 
anticompetitive licensing practices. It's taking away the chance for 
real competition in the operating system market.
    Robert Habas
    Computer Connections
    St. Helens, Oregon
    (503) 397-;6726 [email protected]
    http://www.columbiapc.com



MTC-00028939

From: Rodney Snow
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 7:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Rodney Snow
81 Lemon Grove
Irvine, Ca 92618-;4510
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 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,
    Rodney Snow



MTC-00028940

From: ``SSISA'' Daniel Garber
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In my judgment, free choice of the best software product has 
been hindered.
    I have not had the benefit of free choice of all of the 
alternatives in the market.
    I want to be able to choose a product other than Microsoft, if I 
should decide to do so.
    Daniel Garber
    Surgical Services Information Systems Administrator (SSISA)
    Harborview Medical Center Operating Room
    325 9th Avenue, Box #359890
    Seattle, WA 98104 USA
    206-;731-;4520 voice
    206-;731-;6577 fax
    206-;986-;7505 pager



MTC-00028941

From: Donald Loptien
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 7:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Donald Loptien
7450 Deerfield Rd
Longmont, CO 80503-;8788
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 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.

[[Page 28480]]

    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,
    Donald Loptien



MTC-00028942

From: Spencer, Pamela S
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/28/02 7:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 28, 2001
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As a fellow Republican in Rep. Tom Delay's district I wish to 
express my support of the settlement reached last November between 
the Department of Justice and the Microsoft Corporation. It has now 
been 3 years since the Justice Department began the litigation 
process against Microsoft. During this time countless dollars have 
gone to court mediators who endlessly debated the merits of this 
case. In times where budgetary resources are becoming increasingly 
scarce this action is increasingly appalling. Three years has been 
too long. I cannot imagine there is anything more to discuss.
    Once more, the settlement that was reached contains many 
concessions on behalf of Microsoft. in an attempt to settle the 
dispute Microsoft has been willing to agree to these terms despite 
their lack of guilt in the case. Microsoft has agreed to design 
Windows XP with a particular mechanism that will allow users to add 
competing software into the system. This will revolutionize the way 
our operating systems are configured.
    I believe that if Microsoft is willing to make these changes, 
the settlement should be enacted. I strongly support the settlement 
and look forward to the end of this case.
    Sincerely,
    Pamela Spencer
    3006 Oakland Dr.
    Sugar Land , TX 77479-;2451
    cc: Representative Tom DeLay



MTC-00028943

From: Greg Brockway
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Leave Microsoft alone. We are a lot better off with them than 
without them. Maybe they should move to Canada and give them the 
taxes.
    Greg A. Brockway



MTC-00028944

From: Harry Dullys
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:13pm
Subject: MICROSOFT Settlement
Harry Dullys
722 Valley Street
Orange, NJ 07050
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Microsoft has been involved for more than three years in the 
resolution of its antitrust case. I believe that the time has come 
to put this matter behind us. I also believe that the current terms 
serve the best interests of the public. As the settlement agreement 
stands, the company will be more competitive in the marketplace, and 
as a result, consumers worldwide will benefit.
    It is my understanding that Microsoft has consented to design 
future versions of Windows that make it easier for software 
developers to install non-Microsoft programs in the operating 
system--;among many other concessions. Surely this indicates the 
corporation's commitment to comply with the law and the general 
needs of consumers and those in the IT field.
    I hope that the Department of Justice will see fit to ensure 
that the agreement remains in its current form, lest three 
additional years of negotiations become necessary. Thank you for 
your attention.
    Sincerely,
    Harry Dullys



MTC-00028945

From: Bob (038) Adie Santore
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
TO : Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division,
US Department of Justice
FROM : Robert Santore, Concerned Citizen
    I believe America needs closure on this matter once and for all. 
How long has it been, how much money will it take...and how long 
will it continue to be?
    The Federal Government must state it's case, derive it's 
penalties, seek resolution, and end it's relentless efforts to drag 
this matter on any further--;perhaps into the next 
administration. They need to set a time limit. The longer the 
Justice Department takes to administer it's justice, the public will 
be thoroughly disgusted, and America once again will receive her 
enormous share of worldwide ridicule.
    This action is a waiste of precious taxpayer resources, and most 
of us believe the action by the previous administration was 
politically motivated, fueled by Microsoft's competiton. No one has 
yet to prove that the American citizen or the software industry has 
been hurt by the alligations of anti-competive behavior. Is it worth 
the cost? And, while the Government continues it's aggressive 
pursuits, we have real serious problems to contend with...such as 
the Enron case, where thousands of employees and investors were 
sucker-punched, collapse of a major corporation, lost employment and 
retirements. That's the real crime. And that's precisely where the 
Justice Department should be spending it's efforts. The continuous 
and incessent attacks against Microsoft



MTC-00028946

From: Jr. Christopher Horton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a Win98 user who is ``fed up'' with Microsoft's 
bullying behavior. Linux and other operating systems wouldn't be so 
popular if Microsoft actully ``listened'' to their 
customers for once. I am all in favor of restoring consumer choice 
to the computer market. Customers should be allowed to choose what 
operating system they want on their PCs, not the ``big 
box'' computer stores, and certainly ``not'' 
Microsoft!
    Jr. Christopher Horton
    [email protected]



MTC-00028947

From: 
[email protected]@inetg
w
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly urge the Department of Justice to accept the proposed 
settlement as outlined by the appeals court. This litigation should 
never have been brought in the first place. I use Microsoft products 
daily and in no way do I feel they have taken unfair advantage in 
their business practices. I also use Netscape as my internet browser 
so I know there is a choice. Please accept the agreement so the 
country and Microsoft can move on.
    Dean Waldenberger



MTC-00028948

From: Hathai Sangsupan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I just wanted you to know that I feel strongly that the proposed 
Microsoft Settlement is a TERRIBLE IDEA!



MTC-00028949

From: Joe R. Wood, Jr
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 7:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joe R. Wood, Jr
607 Ridgeview Cir
Rocklin, CA 95677
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 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

[[Page 28481]]

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,
    Joe R. Wood, Jr.



MTC-00028950

From: 
[email protected]@inetg
w
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement, while appearing to address the 
anticompetitive behaviour identified in the 1998 complaint, is 
deficient in several ways.
    First and foremost, the complaint itself was, it may be 
inferred, limited in scope, for the purposes of greater probability 
of gaining a conviction or settlement, and for the purposes of 
shortening the proceedings.
    As such, there is much, reasonably well documented and widely 
known in the industry, past behavior of an anticompetitive nature on 
Microsofts part, which was not included in the complaint. This 
behavior continues, and should be addressed in any settlement or 
imposed finding by the court.
    Specific activity, which is ongoing, was not identified, and 
which must be stopped, includes the purchasing of software companies 
dominant in their specific niche markets and providing multi-
platform software; purchasing the companies or 
``poaching'' critical assets (eg employees) of companies 
making development software (eg the Borland, past developers of 
``C'' compiler which competed with Microsoft's product, 
whose entire development staff was hired by MS, effectively crushing 
Borland); and the contractual tying of distribution rights for 
Explorer, to the use of Microsoft Software on portal internet sites 
(among ISPs who operate servers and also supply browser software to 
customers, effectively falsely boosting server market share as well 
as extortionary pricing).
    Another impact, not addressed, is the potential employment 
market for software developers. By establishing, through its 
predatory practices, an unnatural market with uncompetitive 
salaries, Microsoft effectively established a salary cap in the 
software industry, which has directly affected every single software 
developer, as well as limiting the potential market for developers, 
by establishing a closed market in many software solution areas, as 
well as ``closed shop'' sectors in further areas and 
placing high barriers to entry to competitors who might have opened 
these sectors with enabling software (OS's, languages, middle-ware, 
and open standards in the Open Source Software areas).
    In addition to its bad corporate practices, Microsoft has: 
established its own bad development practices (via its Certification 
programs); broken the pre-existing ``mentor'' practice for 
software development (by hiring, exclusively, college graduates or 
college students) thus circumventing ``best practices'' 
indoctrination in the industry; demolished pre-existing 
``competitive but cooperative'' market practice among 
competing products (eg ability to import/export among differing word 
processing packages); and established ``anti-marketing'', 
the practice now coined ``Fear Uncertainty and Doubt'' 
(FUD), synonomous with Microsoft but used in other business sectors. 
Additionally, the failure to adequately address many aspects of what 
an operating system is itself designed to handle, such as 
networking, security, file names, memory protection, etc, have been 
dismal failures or ignored completely--;things which in a truly 
competitive market would have spelled the end of a company failing 
at such a basic level. All of these behaviors are anti-competitive. 
All are harmful to consumers. All have had the effect of reducing 
competition, raising prices, and limiting or eliminating development 
of new features. All of these need to be addressed, effectively, in 
any settlement or consent decree, or other court action against 
Microsoft.
    If the court were to see fit to also impose minimum standards on 
any software deemed an effective monopoly, be it the operating 
system, browser, complier, network stack, or similar, the protection 
of consumer interests and businesses alike would be well serverd.
    I hope these comments are useful in the settlement process.
    Sincerely,
    Brian Dickson
    Arlington, VA
    703-;564-;7246



MTC-00028951

From: DanLucky(a)MediaOne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:16pm
Subject: Microsoft
Dan Lucky
2455 S Ponte Vedra Boulevard
Ponte Vedra Beach, FL 32082
904-;827-;0098
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing on the occasion of the Justice Department's public 
comment period on the Microsoft settlement. As an objective member 
of the technology industry with 35 years of experience, working with 
a competitive platform vendor (IBM) to the Windows operating system, 
it seems that this case developed as a naive attempt of politicians 
to placate the complaints of businesses (Sun, Oracle, Apple, etc.) 
in their districts that have failed to gain their desired market 
share in the software industry. The ensuing attempt at a break-up 
was a punch in the face to free enterprise by a government 
interfering where it doesn't belong, so I believe accepting this 
compromise would be a major step forward for getting this economy 
back on track and moving on from this horrible legal charade 
instigated by envious ``losers''. I have seen this 
``looser'' attitude over and over in this industry. 
Microsoft has set a standard that most competitors don't like to 
compete against. Though their rivals have mostly been victims of bad 
marketing strategies and/or mediocre products, Microsoft is planning 
to take several steps to level the playing field further. I believe 
they will offer the top 20 computer manufacturers with equal pricing 
for licenses of the Windows operating system without adding any 
restrictions on the distribution or promotion of competitive 
products, while allowing broad capabilities to arrange its platform 
with a custom combination of Microsoft and non-Microsoft software. 
They will also provide disclosure of their internal interfaces and 
server protocols to assist software developers in the design 
process. As you can see with the above examples, Microsoft is making 
serious efforts to appease the rest of the marketplace. This is a 
company that has helped move our economy forward by helping hundreds 
of millions of consumers join the information age, and that should 
be respected with a measured judgment. Any further action would be 
unwarranted and more costly and difficult to implement, so please 
proceed with this very fair solution. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Dan Lucky
    CC:Microsoft's Freedom To Innovate Network



MTC-00028952

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge,
    I am a student at the University of Southern California, and use 
computers as one of the primary tools for education and learning. I 
do not feel that allowing microsoft to abuse the anti trust laws is 
allowing me to gain all of the possible learning tools for my major. 
If they have a monopoly over software, I am limited to make my own 
decisions in applications. PFJ is not enough. Thank you for taking 
the time to read this.
    God Bless,
    Campbell Coulter
    1247 W 30th St. #110
    Los Angeles, CA. 90007
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw,dklei
nkn@yahoo.



MTC-00028953

From: Rosemary Motisi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I came across today's deadline to comment on the Microsoft 
settlement quite by accident. I have not been following the case 
closely and consider myself no expert in these affairs. However, 
when I did work in the software industry some years ago, Microsoft 
was well-known for taking the spirit of competition too far. Amusing 
pranks--;such as programmers on loan to competing software 
developers--;purposely embedding errors into software to cause 
distruption in the competing product's

[[Page 28482]]

release. If true, and these stories were widespread, Microsoft has 
lacked a measure of integrity for a long time. The fact that the 
company is offering chances at a ``prize'' for writing 
letters in support of Microsoft and not seeing that in any fashion 
as a ``bribe'' is typical.
    I hope in our efforts to ``promote business'' we do 
not overlook integrity and honesty and fair dealing.
    What's good for Microsoft is not necessarily what's best for 
America.
    Thank you--;
    Rosemary Motisi



MTC-00028954

From: The Okumuras
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    I am a concerned citizen writing to you about the Microsoft 
settlement. I ask that you ensure that the punishment is 
commensurate with the criminal offenses of which Microsoft has been 
convicted. Consider the amount of money they made in dealing 
unfairly and brutally with other industry members in the pursuit of 
profit. Does the current settlement penalize them to the degree of 
the profit they reaped? I do not think so.
    The current penalty does not seem to have any way of changing 
the way this company operates. Any corporation that has used unfair 
sales practices to gain an advantage cannot be trusted to police 
itself. They have lost the right to be self-regulating by the gross 
offenses of which a court has found them guilty. Any penalty that 
does not change the way they do business is nothing more than a 21st 
century version of jury nullification. Doesn't our pledge of 
allegiance end with ``liberty and justice for ALL?'' 
Justice should be executed upon all lawbreakers regardless of how 
much money they have or even the impact it might have on the 
economy--;as bizarre as that may sound. My fear is that when 
such crimes go relatively unpunished, it sends the message that 
there is no justice. Our economy will recover but our values and 
morals--;the bedrock of society--;will not recover if the 
courts refuse to uphold the law. In fact, without commensurate 
penalty, you are creating the very environment that allows companies 
like Microsoft to continue breaking the law.
    As a judge, you have an obligation to uphold the law. I urge you 
to do so. Do not nullify the judgment of guilt by meaningless 
penalties that neither right past wrongs nor ensure future wrongs 
will not be committed.
    Sincerely,
    Kirk Okumura
    130 Ashbrooke Ln
    Aston, PA 19014-;1003
    610.358.3337



MTC-00028955

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:24pm
Subject: Is it fair?
Judge Kollar-Kotally
    My name is Asmat Khan and I live in New Jersey. I heard about 
the some aspect of the Proposed settlement made by Justice 
Department in Microsoft case and I am not satisfied with this 
proposed settlement. It is not fair to give one company the rights 
of software monopoly. We are living in a free country and I think 
same rules applies to the software companies. I believe in the free 
market where I can choose the product I want offered by different 
and a competitive price. And it is fair with the software industry.
    Your honor, I would want Microsoft be brought to justice 
upholding to democratic values. Sadly to say that monopolies are the 
trade mark of monarchs and communist governments.
    Asmat Khan.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00028956

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/28/02 7:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern.
    As a Certified IT professional with 19 years experience in Unix 
Systems administration, I would offer my comments on the Proposed 
Final Judgment in the case of the US vs. Microsoft.
    First I would like to applaud the DOJ on it's finding Microsoft 
as a monopoly who has used illegal and unethical practices in order 
to maintain and increase it's monopoly power. If Microsoft is allow 
to continue it's current criminal behavior, it will extend it's 
monopoly into yet other markets. Broadcast communications, Internet 
broad band services and Personal game consoles are already on the 
Microsoft monopoly radar. I have read the proposal. I will say it is 
a good start with a couple of glaring exceptions.
    As a Unix systems administrator, I have frequently used an 
``Open Source'' application called SAMBA to provide file 
system sharing services between Unix and Windows machine. This 
software is written in large by volunteers around the world. 
Submissions are excepted by a central committee on merit of the 
submitted code alone. The code is checked for any obvious malicious 
code. But the backgrounds of the individuals submitting the code is 
never investigated to see if they have a ``history of software 
counterfeiting or piracy or willful violations of intellectual 
property rights.''
    A volunteer group of coders does not have the resources to 
provide such a guaranty. But Microsoft, with a legendary legal 
department of at least 600 lawyers does. Microsoft would use this as 
a reason to keep this vital documentation from the only real 
competition remaining in the Windows File and print services space. 
And, since the SAMBA group is have to figure out much of the 
undocumented SMB API's (Much of it is documented, but many key 
aspects are undocumented), Microsoft could declare that the SAMBA 
team as a whole are, ``counterfeiting, ...intellectual 
property''
    Another group to which these exceptions apply is the 
``WINE'' group. These volunteers are trying to port the 
Windows win32 API to the Linux and other Unix platforms to enable 
application written for Windows to run on Linux and other Unix 
computers. Also, there is nothing in the proposal to hinder 
Microsoft from extending their monopoly into other areas, for 
instance Personal Gaming Consoles (X-Box), Set top video digital 
recorders (Ultimate TV) and Broad band access (see http://
news.com.com/2100-;1033-;277203.html?legacy=cnet)
    To this end, I would like to add the following commentary to my 
own. http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html In conclusion, while 
the DOJ proposal is what I would deem a good first rough draft, 
there are some issues with it as it stands. It keeps key 
technologies from the only group of programmers who can currently 
and readily benefit from them, then return these benefits back to 
the consumer in the shortest amount of time. And it does go far 
enough to curtail Microsoft's incursion into other markets. With a 
$35 billion ``War Chest'' whatever technology they can not 
Co-opt by anti competitive practices, they will simply buy. As last 
example I would like to offer the following piece. This has just 
happened within the last several weeks. This is after the DOJ had 
made the current proposal. http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/
23708.html
    Very Sincerely,
    Kevin Hudson
    706 Oakley Dr. Lake
    Dallas, TX 75065
    Ph. (940) 498-;0284
    E-Mail: mailto:[email protected]
    PS. To the Bush administration: For whom I did vote. If you are 
really serious about eliminating terrorism where ever it occurs, 
here is you chance to prove to the world that this isn't just just 
words to justify revenge against under armed third world countries. 
Exact judgement against a well known corporate terroirst bred right 
here on American soil. Bring these terroirst AKA Microsoft to 
justice. Real justice not just a petty slap on the rest.



MTC-00028957

From: Kathryn Irene Capps
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:26pm
Subject: Conerns about Microsoft monopoly
    I am a software engineer working in Silicon Valley. Over the 
last 10 years I have worked for 4 start up companies. I'm writing to 
express my concern about Microsoft and the monopoly it holds in the 
OS market. In particular, I'm very concerned about the chill 
Microsoft's monopoly has placed on PC application development. I 
believe that this market has been stagnant for some time, because 
investors will not put money into a venture that might compete with 
Microsoft. Microsoft has squashed competitors to Word, Excel, 
Powerpoint, etc. Microsoft's products have been sometimes better, 
sometimes worse, and sometimes equivalent. The point is that they 
did not win the market and kill all competition in these categories 
because they were better, they won the market because they bundled 
the applications with the OS that has a monopoly over the market. I 
see this as a clear abuse of that monopoly. Why try to create an 
improved spreadsheet if you can't charge a reasonable price? Why 
create a new application at all if you know that Microsoft can and 
will enter the market and undercut your price, forcing users to 
purchase their product when they purchase

[[Page 28483]]

the OS? I've seen folks pitch ideas to venture capitalists and be 
cut down because they might compete with Microsoft. Please consider 
this issue carefully! Please think through the long term costs of 
letting Microsoft be the *only* company developing PC applications.
    Katie Capps
    Software Engineer
    January 28, 2002



MTC-00028958

From: Jean Lauver
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 7:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jean Lauver
1061 Stonehenge Drive
Hanahan, SC 29406-;2416
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 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,
    Jean Lauver



MTC-00028959

From: Perman, Tim
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 7:25pm
Subject: Free markets--;pretty simple concept
Resource allocation set by producers and buyers
    The letter writer who argued for government action as the only 
method of preserving capitalism by regulating Microsoft sounds like 
Joel Klein and Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson--;misinformed. The 
Austrian school of economics points out that the allocation of 
resources in a market economy is determined by the actions of 
millions of producers and buyers. For any judge or attorney to 
question this is ludicrous.
    Understanding the above, you will also be able to understand 
that the only monopolies that can possibly exist are government-
granted monopolies. The U.S. Postal Service may be the most anti-
consumer company in America. Rising costs, slower 
delivery--;that is a monopoly. In this state you need only visit 
a liquor store (with perhaps inconvenient hours and most likely out-
of-the-way locations) to understand how a monopoly can treat 
consumers. Klein says that he ``will debate any Libertarian, 
anywhere, anytime'' on the subject of monopolies. As a member 
of the Libertarian Party, I am proud to say that I share Klein's 
disdain for monopolies. As the person who is forced to pay both 
Klein and Jackson, I am outraged that they do not understand simple 
free-market economics. As a Microsoft shareholder, I hope that the 
company defends capitalistic freedom with the determination that the 
Founding Fathers of this country did.
    Thomas Hobbes wrote, ``There are few so foolish that they 
had not rather govern themselves than be governed by others.'' 
True capitalism can exist only without fools in power. If Klein 
wants to debate this, bring the fool on.
    Tim Perman
    Redmond



MTC-00028960

From: Jason Bishop
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to relate a story that a friend told me a year or 
so ago. I believe that the setting for this story was ``97 +/- 
1 year. At the time, he was working for Intel in a fledgling group 
for intel's first foray into consumer 3D graphics. At the time, 
there was really only one 3D graphics standard, SGI's OpenGL.
    This story became especially fascinating, because at this same 
time, SGI independently was interested in extending the reach of 
OpenGL to the consumer PC. They contributed the software source code 
for the rendering engine and all library routines that make up 
OpenGL to Microsoft in the hopes that there might be a place for 
OpenGL in the desktop operating system.
    At this same time, it appears that Microsoft was starting to 
notice that 3D graphics was becoming an ``interesting 
market''. I'm not going to second-guess Microsoft thinking, but 
I will relate the results. OpenGL source code was modified (40 
lines) and renamed to Direct3D and then DirectX. Microsoft now had 
an API for the 3D gaming market, which of course, was incompatible 
with any other API, including OpenGL. This would not normally be a 
wise business decision, but this is Microsoft. Since they had a 
monopoly on the desktop, having a 3D gaming API which was 
incompatible with any other would turn out to be beneficial. Read on 
for gory details...
    By this time, Intel's 3D chipset for the consumer market was 
almost ready. All that separated them from a shippable product was 
Microsoft certification. So Intel takes the new hardware to 
microsoft, where they learned that it failed certification. Upon 
inquiry, it was learned that Microsoft had changed the rules for 
hardware certification, namely that DirectX must be supported and 
not OpenGL. What makes this especially diabolical is one of the 
changes made to turn OpenGL into DirectX was a change to the 
algorithm which determines if a pixel is turned on. This routine is 
implemented in hardware. The result is that it is impossible to pass 
the hardware certification with hardware designed for OpenGL. Intel 
would have to redo their hardware, including producing the chips all 
over again. Intel would also have to support the new microsoft 
DirectX API if they wanted to be granted hardware compatability 
status. So why does Intel care if they receive hardware 
compatibility status? Easy, because microsoft requires all PC 
manufactures to only include microsoft certified hardware in PC's 
they sell. In this way, Microsoft can control hardware companies. Of 
course, the reverse is true.
    Normal rules don't seem to apply to microsoft, and the 
settlement should reflect this in my opinion.
    Jason Bishop
    Union City, CA



MTC-00028961

From: Sawley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The AOL lawsuit against Microsoft is a pathetic attempt to try 
to gain public sympathy in court against a competitor that they 
can't compete against in the public market
    Lewis W. Sawley
    (my previous email may have been addressed improperly)



MTC-00028962

From: Ray Whitmer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I am adding my full address and other info, which I forgot when 
I first sent this message:
    Ray Whitmer
    [email protected]
    575 E. Center Street
    Orem, Utah 840975603
    801-;225-;3488
Forwarded message
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 16:49:39 -0700 (MST)
From: Ray Whitmer 
To: [email protected]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement. To whom it may concern, regarding the 
proposed settlement of the microsoft case.
    I am not a lawyer, and have no sound legal advise to offer, and 
the time has past for that. I have been an employee of a number of 
companies who have found it impossible to compete with Microsoft 
because competing with them had little to do with quality of product 
and everything to do with control. You do not have to look far at 
all for many overt acts that I think any reasonable person would 
call criminal. This is because of the high- pressure eminating from 
the top of the company, to win at any costs. In my 20 years 
developing products across many operating

[[Page 28484]]

systems and corporate structures, I have worked for WordPerfect 
corporation, Novell, and Corel, among others, and it has become 
increasingly obvious that quality has nothing to do with winning in 
the marketplace. It is all about who controls the information 
patterns of the masses, whether it be Movies, Software, News, or 
Advertising. This is not a new phenomenon. Once the Catholic Church 
controlled these things quite effectively with systems that greatly 
resembled the ever-expanding copyrights and patents on things today. 
Today, Martin Luther, sneaking out of the Vatican with his biblical 
transcripts would be hunted down as the latest Napster-ite, who 
thinks that works which interweave themselves so deeply into the 
roots of a population should not be controlled by a power-hungry 
entity such as a Church or a Mega-corporation. This does not mean 
that those who produce them do not deserve profit, but see what the 
billions paid for Windows every year buys us: In significant cases, 
less than what the remaining competition now gives away for free, 
because Microsoft has such a lock on the market. The profits are 
squandered every year on power. There are dozens of competing 
products that could have easily taken that position had they 
controlled the power they had in their times as unscrupulously as 
Microsoft does. Corporate survival and hunger for power and profits 
are the reason we have antitrust laws. In this case, the public 
shame is greater, because it is the Copyright laws--;an 
artificially- granted government monopoly--;that establishes the 
Microsoft Monopoly. If it were possible to still compete in this 
market against that Corporation, you would clearly be seeing much 
lower prices--;the Microsoft take increases, but somehow the 
economies of scale in software production never lowers the price of 
the software, and there is never even consideration that you paid 
for dozens of versions you can no longer use because Microsoft has 
made them incompatible.
    Microsoft is not an indispensible part of the market. If they 
vanished, within 5 years, there would be no trace left, and there 
would be competition for a little while until another corporation 
showed that it was the most vicious of those remaining and 
consolidated power.
    I and thousands of people like me have started writing new 
software that is not susceptible to this overbearing corporate 
eternal ownership--;which I have to believe is extremely 
different from what the framers of the Constitution thought they 
were doing in granting limited copyright and patents. We have the 
technology to design around the original intent of these laws, and 
it is time that you look at seriously reigning in the moster that 
has evolved. Law of the mega-corporation, by the mega-corporation, 
and for the mega-corporation is not in anyone's best interest long-
term, even if the mega-corporate advertising of today has the same 
persuasive power as the mega-Churches of old over the masses, 
tribunals, and courts of law. The case against Microsoft was poorly 
made, and hardly justified, not that there wasn't a huge case to be 
made. But your remedies are worse than ineffective. They will do 
more harm than good. You have overturned the breakup, which might 
have had some effect, but likewise didn't get at the root of the 
problems, which I have tried to describe here. It is not Microsoft 
that is wrong but  which succeeded by such 
viciousness would be just as bad, and I would be just as sorry to 
see Sun, Oracle, or even my own company AOL Time Warner be in such 
an abusive position.
    I think that when a company abuses the public trust of its 
granted monopolies as badly as Microsoft has, the appropriate and 
natural action is to revoke their monopoly, which in this case is 
their copyright. With that arrow in your quiver, it would not be 
difficult to convince companies in the future to act more in the 
public interest. Short of that, please abandon your current pursuits 
and admit honestly that the corporation has won and the country has 
lost. It is really rubbing salt in our wounds to offer something 
that hurts more than it helps and claim you have acted in our 
behalf. Human rights are more important than copyrights or corporate 
rights. Many technology companies go under every year. It would be 
better, though if there was a better connection between profits and 
service. If you do not, the next revolution is on the horizon. You 
cannot lock up everyone for violations of intellectual 
``property'' any more than the Church could, however much 
the corporations want to control everything. And corporations do not 
need an absolute eternal copyright as much as they might claim. And 
America will become the ``old world'' while other 
countries such as Russia have their patriots thrown in prison in 
America for crimes of conscience by the dozens of new FBI/DOJ 
departments created for this new opression --; certainly not for 
any overt act depriving a corporation of it's profit in the recent 
Sklyarov case. Do you really want to be the ``Department of 
Justice'' which presided over such a debacle? Where is justice 
for we, the people?
    Ray Whitmer
    [email protected]



MTC-00028963

From: Ray Leach
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 7:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ray Leach
1913 Bay Oaks Court
Fort Worth, TX 76112-;4503
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 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,
    Ray D. Leach, Colonel USAF (Ret)



MTC-00028964

From: ANDREW SHINER
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:32pm
Subject: MICROSOFT
    PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT I AM A MICROSOFT USER AND HAVE BEEN SINCE 
1982. I THINK MICROSOFT HAS REDUCED THE COST OF INFORMATION OVER 
THAT PERIOD. PLEASE LET MICROSOFT DO WHAT IS DOES WELL . LETS KEEP 
GOVERNMENT OUT OF BUSINESS. THE LAST TIME THE GOVERNMENT HELPED ME 
WAS THE AT&T SPLIT UP. LETS LEARN FROM THE PAST. THANK YOU 
ANDREW SHINER P. O. BOX 187 FREELAND, PA 18224



MTC-00028965

From: Donna Fox
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 7:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Donna Fox
8123 Cesperdes Ave.
Jacksonville, FL 32217-;4068
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 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

[[Page 28485]]

entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and competitive 
products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Donna J. Fox



MTC-00028966

From: Bettye Bailey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:33pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    It is time to leave Microsoft alone. There are many things more 
important than bedeviling a company so important to our economy. 
Please allow them to get back to work. I have a M.A. in Economics 
from Stanford and do know I speak from experience.
    Get to the things that really need doing.
    Bettye Bailey



MTC-00028967

From: Stanley` Curtis
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 7:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Stanley` Curtis
207 Falcon Crest
Warner Robins, Ga 31088
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 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,
    Stanley T. Curtis



MTC-00028968

From: Marylynne Kirkland
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 7:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Marylynne Kirkland
P.O. Box 755
Panguitch, UT 84759-;0755
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 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,
    Marylynne Wagner Kirkland



MTC-00028969

From: ccoulter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge,
    If we want to preserve the right to have a free choice on 
products, goods, and a freedom to makre our own choices, the the 
Proposed Final Judgement is not enough. I hope that you will see 
that Microsoft has been controlling us and has controlled the 
technology world. Please consider a harsher punishment to stop thier 
control over a free market.
    Sincerely,
    Coulter Campbell
    Coulter Campbell
    910 Knob Hill Ave
    Redondo Beach, CA. 90277



MTC-00028970

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
2859 Hearthstone Way
Rockford, Illinois 61114
January 12, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I think the lawsuits against Microsoft have gone on way too 
long. I am glad to see that Microsoft is not being broken up, but I 
thoroughly believe that this suit has been a personal vendetta from 
the first place and has been extremely unfair to Bill Gates.
    The terms of the settlement do not let Microsoft off easy. 
Microsoft has to disclose internal interfaces, design future version 
of Windows so that competitors can promote their own products, and 
improve their relations with computer makers and software developers 
regardless of their competitors'' practices, efficiencies, or 
strategies. These restrictions go against free market economy 
principles to choose your partners, vendors, and consumers.
    At any rate, I think it is in the best interest of the American 
public to end this lawsuit and finalize the settlement as soon as 
possible. Our tech sector needs to the brilliant innovation of 
Microsoft and their workers to jumpstart the industry and help out 
our ailing economy.
    Sincerely,
    Velora Upstone



MTC-00028971

From: John Wilson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not agree with the settlement terms as they exist at this 
point. I appreciate with Microsoft's contention that they should be 
free to innovate, but they should be forced to compete with the rest 
of the industry on a level playing field through the quality of 
their products, rather than by flexing their monopolistic muscles. 
Windows XP is a clear indication that they have no intentions of 
playing by the rules, even after all they have been through. Windows 
XP is just as unstable as Win2K (both are far more stable than the 
Win95/98 series), and they have once again bundled their 
``cornerstone'' software in such a way that it becomes 
impossible to separate. You cannot shut down Messenger when MS 
Office is running, for example. The error message states that 
``There are other applications currently using features 
provided by Windows Messenger.These applications may include 
Outlook, Outlook Express, MSN Explorer and Internet Explorer''. 
This is precisely the same thing they did when making IE part of the 
OS. Clearly they haven't learned their lesson, which means the 
current settlement terms do not go nearly far enough.
    Please make them play fair. That is your job. You are not 
helping the industry by making it easy on Microsoft, you are hurting 
it.



MTC-00028972

From: 
[email protected]@inetg
w
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    An important understanding of *modern* economic models would 
help in crafting a suitable remedy.
    The best lay-persons explanation of what kind of competitive 
behavior should be encouraged, can be seen in the current movie 
``A Beautiful Mind''.
    In a bar, John Nash explains to his fellow students the impact 
of Adam Smith style economics, versus his new model, where it 
concerns competing for limited resources.

[[Page 28486]]

Watch the movie, and apply the concept to any proposed remedy. If 
there is not more than one happy party, the result is bad for 
everyone. If both sides (and all parties with a direct interest, 
including AOL Time Warner, Sun, Oracle, etc, as well as Microsoft) 
do not praise the result, it is practically by definition, bad for 
consumers, bad for business, and bad for America and the entire 
western world.
    The current proposed settlement, by this reasoning, is *very* 
*very* bad.
    Sincerely,
    Brian Dickson
    Arlington, VA



MTC-00028973

From: Debra J. McDonald
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Although I firmly believe that the microsoft anti-trust suit was 
a misuse of our hard earned tax dollars, I believe the proposed 
settlement (under the circumstances) is reasonable and we should 
move in a more positive direction. Finish the deal and gag all other 
parties who have personal separate agends.



MTC-00028974

From: joe chensky
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:35pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Sirs; bring this to closure. the states are not interested in 
finality, they are concerned about power and notoriety. it is time 
to go on with business and free enterprise. Sincerly Joseph L 
Chensky. a concerned citizen



MTC-00028976

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:33pm
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,
    maxine pollard
    132 No. Roby Dr.
    Anderson, IN 46012



MTC-00028977

From: Melissa
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to give my thoughts on the settlement between the 
US Department of Justice and Microsoft Corporation. I want you to 
know that I support the settlement that was reached back in 
November. It is in the best interests of the government to accept 
the settlement, and move onto more pressing matters. I believe we 
have wasted far too much taxpayer money and government time as it 
is, to pursue an issue that never was in the consumers best 
interest.
    The terms of this settlement are reasonable, and were reached 
after a great deal of effort with the help of a court appointed 
mediator. Microsoft is not getting off easy like it's opponents 
might lead you to believe. The company has agreed to make a number 
of specific changes to its business practices that will prevent 
future antitrust violations. For example, Microsoft has agreed to 
document and disclose various interfaces that are internal to 
Windows'' operating system products for use by its competitors.
    Also, a technical committee comprised of three software 
engineering experts will monitor Microsoft's compliance with the 
settlement, and assist with dispute resolution.
    Sincerely,
    Melissa Melvin
    11001 Dogleg Trace
    Tega Cay, SC 29708
    cc: Senator Strom Thurmond
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00028978

From: Tim Schulteis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    The U.S. is giving away the store in the proposed U.S. vs. 
Microsoft final judgment, and the settlement should be rejected. The 
proposed settlement has serious flaws. The courts have convicted 
Microsoft of many anti-trust violations resulting in many billions 
of dollars of profits, yet the proposed solution would allow the 
company to keep almost all of that money and would provide no 
protection against future abuse of Microsoft's power.
    Forcing Microsoft to give away software (and even hardware) to 
schools is barely a punishment, either, as it allows Microsoft to 
further expand its dominance into perhaps the one market it doesn't 
yet fully control-the education market. And setting up a structure 
whereby Microsoft would essentially police itself is entirely the 
wrong approach to protecting us.
    I ask you to reject the proposed final judgment on these 
grounds.
    Sincerely,
    Tim Schulteis
    3229 Azalea Circle
    Lynn Haven, FL 32444
    850-;747-;0336



MTC-00028979

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
406 Winston Avenue
Baltimore, MD 21212
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    It is sad that Microsoft has had to spend three years in court 
in the antitrust case. This is a great American company that 
contributed so much to our recent economic growth, and could help us 
get out of this current recession.
    That is why I was very happy to learn that a settlement was 
reached in this case. Microsoft has paid its dues and agreed to a 
good settlement. The settlement will give non-Microsoft firms access 
to Microsoft code. With this information, non-Microsoft firms will 
be able to build better software.
    Unfortunately, some with animosity toward Microsoft opposes this 
settlement, and they should be ignored. It is time Microsoft is 
released from federal court.
    Sincerely,
    Merle Sturm
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00028980

From: Walter & Janice Schneider
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 7:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Walter & Janice Schneider
1603 Riverdale Ave
Sheboygan, WI 53081
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 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.

[[Page 28487]]

    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Janice and Walter Schneider



MTC-00028981

From: David Mott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed DOJ settlement with Microsoft IS A BAD IDEA! In 
order to have a chance of restoring competition in the Operating 
System market for PCs, the restrictions must be much stronger.
    Restrictions proposed by the 9 ``rogue'' states are 
more reasonable.



MTC-00028982

From: Ardy Forouhar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    I am a concerned citizen and software industry employee. I 
wanted to take this opportunity to let you know that as a silicon 
valley professional, I don't think the judgement goes far enough in 
addressing Microsoft's past wrong doings.
    I realize that I'm a small voice among large companies and 
powerful representatives. I am a staffing professional hired full-
time by companies to help assist in staffing their organizations on 
a short and long term basis. As someone working closely with start-
ups, I've come to learn that bullying tactics from the industry 
leader in software technology is not healthy for the diversity of 
skill set among industry professionals on a domestic and global 
basis.
    Also, the proposed settlement would allow the company to retain 
almost all of the profits earned from dominant tactics.
    There are no guarantees that Microsoft won't continue to break 
anti-trust laws by bullying competitors as it always has.
    Microsoft is left to police itself under the proposed final 
judgment (conflict of interest by definition).
    The proposed settlement would amount to a government endorsement 
of Microsoft's monopoly. They could carry on as before.
    Please do your very best to ensure that future jobs of 
entrepeneurs within the area are not further affected through 
industry monopolization and that the high tech industry can be 
revived and not crushed when the economy makes an eventual turn 
around.
    Regards,
    Ardy Forouhar
    143 Monte Villa Ct.
    Campbell, Ca 95008
    Tel: 408-;626-;9517



MTC-00028983

From: Peter Liesenfelt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlment
    The proposed settlement between the DOJ and Microsoft is grossly 
insufficient in either penalizing Microsoft for the antitrust issues 
they have been found guilty of or to provide sufficient protection 
against further actions by Microsoft. As I understand it (not being 
an expert in anti-trust litigation) precedents have been established 
that have identified the standards for monopoly remedies to be of 
the nature of denying the defendant gains from their illegal acts, 
protecting against abuses in the future or eliminate the monopoly. 
The proposed settlement by the DOJ does none of these three things.
    As a citizen of the United States I have seen the following 
occur to my ``practical freedom of choice': My options for a 
personal computer operating systems has been reduced to one, 
Microsoft Windows. My options for application software (word 
processing and spreadsheets) have been reduced to Microsoft Word and 
Microsoft Excel. My option for Internet browsing is practically 
eliminated to one, Microsoft Explorer. I DO NOT want to have my 
choices of Internet hosts to be reduced to one, an Internet 
connection to one, an Internet media provider to one or an Internet 
news service to one. This is the path that Microsoft is going 
toward, to monopolize computing. See Microsoft for what it is, based 
on their previous actions as to where they are going.
    Recently, when Microsoft was planning the release of the Windows 
XP operating system decided to leave out a function to Explorer that 
was called ``smart tags''. This function would have 
allowed Microsoft to essentially ``override'' the content 
of internet pages and supplement the content with content that 
Microsoft desired, essentially censoring internet content. Do we 
want a company that has demonstrated that it abuses its monopoly 
position in personal computer operating systems to have this amount 
of power? Do we trust that they will not abuse this type of power? I 
think not, I hope not, I hope the United States aggressive sees to 
it that it will not occur. Recently I had a problem with my Windows 
2000 Professional system and had to use a backup (much older) pc to 
try to access Microsoft's Internet site to help determine the 
problem. But I found out that since it was a machine that had 
Netscape as a browser that Microsoft prevented me from viewing the 
information. This is only one example of where Microsoft dictates 
terms to its customers something that you would expect it would want 
to serve. Any justifications to such actions is only to further 
their goals to maintain or increase their monopoly, not to serve 
their users, not to serve the public's best interest. As an 
extremely knowledgeable computer user I find Microsoft's tactics to 
not be in the user's interest, only in their corporate interest. I 
am not against corporate America, in fact I am a strong proponent of 
it, but monopolies that abuse their power must be held accountable.
    I could, if need be, help architect a remedy to this case. Do I 
think Microsoft has to be broken up? No. I believe that Microsoft 
will never agree to a remedy that addresses the precedents that have 
been established for antitrust remedies. I strongly urge Judge 
Kollar-Kotelly to not accept the proposed settlement. I fear that 
the DOJ under the Bush administration will not seek remedies that 
are sufficient in depth or breath to prevent future abuses by 
Microsoft and that Judge Kollar-Kotelly will need to independently 
determine a course of remedies that will.
    Peter Liesenfelt
    119 Gladys Avenue
    Mountain View, CA 94043



MTC-00028984

From: Michael Jaehrling
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    Yesterday I sent you a brief message stating my opinion 
regarding the Microsoft case. Today I would like to give you more 
reasons to leave Microsoft in peace: I use Microsoft products, and 
appreciate them enormously. I resent the government's stance on the 
basis that it presumes I am not fit to make decisions about which 
software I buy, and why. If Microsoft is punished, that means they 
have been found a threat--;how can a succssful company's 
products be a threat to anyone other than it's competitors. And if 
the latter is the problem, then the USA cannot claim to be a free 
market or a free country.
    Please bear in mind that consumers did not complain about 
microsoft, nor any community groups. Its competitors (unsuccssful 
ones), rather than competing fairly, resorted to seeking government 
favor to help them. You cannot allow failed companies to set terms 
that will throttle a competitor just because the former was unable 
to match up.
    Governments should not protect some business at the expense of 
others. As someone once said--;``when politicians determine 
what gets bought and sold, the first thing to get bought and sold is 
politicians''. Success, self-made and honest entrepreneurship 
such as that displayed by Bill Gates, should not be punished, but 
embraced and ecouraged. Imagine how successful America would be if 
we had more men like him.... If all of the above is not enough, then 
look to your constitution. A company, like an individual, has the 
right to its property. This right is inviolable. Please, for all our 
sakes, uphold Microsoft's right to compete freely and as it sees 
fit--;do not penalize the good for being good.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Jaehrling
    General Manager
    Hyatt Regency Cheju
    3039-;1 Saekdal-dong
    Seogwipo-si
    Cheju-do
    Korea
    Tel: 82 64 733-;1234
    Fax: 82 64 738-;0900
    www.hyatt.com



MTC-00028985

From: James R Bain
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think it is time to end this costly and damaging litigation 
against Microsoft. Dragging out this legal battle, in which only the 
lawyers will benefit serves no useful purpose. The proposed 
settlement is equitable and should end this legal battle as soon as 
possible.
    James R Bain



MTC-00028986

From: Bruce Miller

[[Page 28488]]

To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/28/02 7:43pm
Subject: JUDGE KOLLAR-KOTELLY: AVOID THE CURRENT MICROSOFT 
SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL
Bruce Miller
Box 31134
Seattle, WA 98103
28 January 2002
U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar- Kotelly
Renata Hesse, trial attorney,
Antitrust Division,
U.S. Department of Justice
    Dear Honorable Judge Kollar-Kotelly:
    I have comments about the proposed settlement terms with 
Microsoft. I think the proposed settlement is very flawed and must 
be re-written to ensure the public and other companies are not 
harmed further by the Microsoft's monopoly. The proposed settlement 
only serves the interests of Microsoft.
    Microsoft's unfair business practices must be addressed to 
protect all Americans and all computer users.
    1. Microsoft must be prohibited from giving unfair preference 
and position for its own products when bundled with its operating 
system products, especially in deals with PC companies.
    2. Microsoft must be prohibited from being able to bundle 
whatever they want to include as part of their operating system, 
because current separately sold software products could be bundled 
with Windows in the future and thus, undercut and eliminate many 
other technology companies.
    3. Because Microsoft is a monopoly, Microsoft must publicly 
disclose their Windows source code in order to level the playfield 
for all American consumers and businesses.
    Please adopt these 3 proposed terms into the currently proposed 
settlement terms with Microsoft. My proposed terms are fair, 
unburdensome to Microsoft and the U.S. Federal and State governments 
and American public, and will be very effective to correct and 
reverse the wrongs Microsoft has committed.
    Sincerely,
    Bruce Miller



MTC-00028987

From: sam perelli
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 7:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
sam perelli
po 103
cedar grove, nj 07009
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 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,
    sam perelli



MTC-00028988

From: Cynthia Haven
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:43pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
28 January 2002
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I cannot let the opportunity to pass for comment on the 
settlement with the Microsoft company pass without taking my 
opportunity to make some public comment. There are many out there 
who think this suit against Microsoft (aka Microshaft) is simply the 
vendetta of some bitter competitors. But the immoral, illegal, and 
greedy acts of Microsoft over the years have come at the cost to 
consumers of choice, innovation, and affordable software. They 
decided long ago that if they can't beat their competitors with 
better quality they would cheat them or beat them into submission.
    There should not be an expiration date to this settlement, 
unless it is more than 30 years. Microsoft management has proven 
that they don't care about the rules and would be anxiously waiting 
in the wings for the next attack. They need to be punished for the 
wrong they have done to the American consumer. If they claim they 
have not stifled competition, why does Microsoft Office cost $500 
dollars. That is NOT a competitive price. I can buy the same 
functions in ``Apple Works'' for $80. And why is it still 
so hard to get rid of Internet Explorer as your default browser? At 
work, I have to get technical assistance to change it. And why, as I 
just found out, that the default search engine for IE is MSN (as in 
Microsoft Network). Try seeing how intuitive it is is to pick 
another search engine, like Google, which is much better. 
Fortunately, at home, I have chosen to use non-Microsoft products, 
even if it costs me money. This is, however, something Microsoft 
presumes most people won't do, and they are usually right.
    Microsoft is not a group of school boys to be slapped on the 
hand with a promise not to misbehave again. They are corrupt, 
greedy, selfish jerks with nobody's interest but their own here. The 
public is not passive about this situation. We want fair play and 
true competition based on market rules and true innovation. Not 
marketing gimmicks and coercion. I applaud the Justice Department in 
their efforts to resolve this situation, but Microsoft should have 
no mechanisms to revive their evil ways. The settlement should be 
strict and long lasting, not 5 years, or we will be in this same 
situation again.
    Sincerely,
    Cynthia P. Haven
    Houston, TX
    [email protected]



MTC-00028989

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my opinion about the recent settlement 
between Microsoft and the US Department of Justice. I think the 
lawsuit has dragged on long enough and should have by this time 
covered all the bases necessary. Our government needs to be facing 
other more pertinent issues than trying to break up a company that 
creates jobs and wealth.
    The terms of the settlement are more than fair and should 
appease all competition since they stipulate that competitors will 
be given interfaces and protocols that are internal to Windows 
operating system products. They also will be given broad new rights 
to confiqure Windows so that non-Microsoft products can be promoted 
more easily.
    I urge your office to do what is best for the American public, 
IT sector, and national economy and implement the settlement. I 
would also request that no further state or federal action is taken 
unless there is a major violation on Microsoft's behalf.
    Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Bob Strong



MTC-00028990

From: Kim Coker
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 7:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kim Coker
2251 Leon Road
Jacksonville, FL 32246
January 28, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice
Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    I have to agree with and concur with the following: The 
Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a nuisance to 
consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech 
industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending 
accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see competition 
in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the investors who 
propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into

[[Page 28489]]

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,
    Kim Coker



MTC-00028991

From: Terry Frost
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you to express my concern over the extended delay 
in the settlement of the Microsoft antitrust case. I see no 
justifiable reason to prolong this case. The major parties have 
reached an agreement on both the nature of the matters at issue and 
the future remedial steps Microsoft will take to remedy past 
perceptions of wrongs and alter its present monopolistic-like 
advantages. I see no reason to prolong this litigation. The computer 
field has new innovations occurring frequently and rapidly.
    Microsoft has agreed not only to forego any future anti-
competitive practices but also to actively work to reduce its 
dominance in its field. For example, Microsoft will now configure 
its Windows systems in a manner that will allow its competitors to 
readily use and even exploit its platforms. Microsoft will alter its 
licensing practices with computer manufacturers so as to encourage 
the use of non-Microsoft software. Microsoft will submit now to an 
ongoing review of its practices by a new federal oversight 
committee. The company has agreed to embrace competition for the 
benefit of the entire industry.
    Please work toward an acceptance of this plan and a cessation of 
this litigation.
    Sincerely,
    Terrance J Frost



MTC-00028992

From: Susan Gilvary
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement with Microsoft does the citizens of the 
United States a grave disservice by failing to protect our rights as 
consumers. Microsoft has accumulated and abused monopoly power, 
stifling competition and reducing our choices. The Justice 
Department should withdraw this proposed settlement. The citizens 
and businesses of this country deserve an open market, not a market 
dominated by an unresponsive, self protecting monopoly.
    Susan Gilvary



MTC-00028993

From: L. E. JOHNSON, JR.
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 7:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
L. E. JOHNSON, JR.
401 Green T Lake Blvd W
Hernando, MS 38632
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 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,
    L. E. JOHNSON, JR.



MTC-00028994

From: Joel Hodgell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:46pm
Subject: COMMENTS ABOUT THE CURRENT MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL; 
MY PROPOSED CHANGES TO IT
Joel Hodgell
12712 Lake City Way NE 3
Seattle, WA 98125
28 January 2002
U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar- Kotelly
Renata Hesse, trial attorney,
Antitrust Division,
U.S. Department of Justice
    Dear Honorable Judge Kollar-Kotelly:
    I am writing to you to comment on the proposed settlement terms 
with Microsoft.
    As is, I think the proposed settlement is very fatally flawed 
and must be written to ensure the public and other companies are not 
further harmed by the monopolistic practices of Microsoft. The 
current proposed settlement terms only serve the interests of 
Microsoft and related special interest groups that gave substantial 
campaign contributions to the Bush campaign and the GOP party.
    Even though I live in Seattle, I believe the unfair monopolistic 
business practices of Microsoft must be punished and adequately 
addressed in order to protect all Americans and the U.S. and world 
economy.
    1. Microsoft must be prohibited from giving unfair preference 
and position for its own products when bundled with its operating 
system products, especially in deals with PC companies.
    2. Microsoft must be prohibited from being able to bundle 
whatever they want to include as part of their operating system, 
because current separately sold software products could be bundled 
with Windows in the future and thus, undercut and eliminate many 
other technology companies.
    3. Since Microsoft is a monopoly, Microsoft must publicly 
disclose their Windows source code in order to level the playing 
field for all American consumers and businesses.
    Please adopt these 3 proposed terms into the currently proposed 
settlement terms with Microsoft. My proposed terms are fair, un-
burdensome to Microsoft and the U.S. Federal and State governments 
and American public, and will be very effective to correct and 
reverse the wrongs Microsoft has committed.
    Sincerely,
    Joel Hodgell



MTC-00028995

From: Paul Speranza
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am writing in response to the public comment period for the 
Microsoft antitrust trial. I would like to urge you to please end 
this lawsuit as soon as possible
    The settlement will definitely promote competition in the 
technology industry, if not hindering Microsoft's own competitive 
abilities. Microsoft will divulge their interfaces and protocols, 
and will share it with competitors., and consumers will be given 
more choices when using the Windows operating system.
    This witch-hunt needs to be ended, and our computer industry 
needs to be restored. Please uphold this settlement.
    Attached please find an email that I originally sent to my state 
attorney general, Mr. Richard Blumenthal, who never even saw to it 
that I at least received an acknowledgment.
    Sincerely,
    Paul Speranza
    Vice President
    All Systems Go, Inc.
    CC:[email protected]@
inetgw
    Mr. Blumenthal,
    I would like to comment on some of the proposed remedies that 
you and the other eight states have suggested in the Microsoft anti-
trust case. Please bear in mind that I am referring to an 
Infoworld.com article for the points that I am addressing.
    1) Allowing other companies to port Office to other platforms. 
This is no small feat. That is probably why Microsoft has a separate

[[Page 28490]]

Macintosh team that develops Office for the Mac. They have to do 
this because code running on Windows will not run on the Macintosh 
or any other platform. Did you know that the Mac version is always 
months behind the newest Windows version? Since the Mac is a 
completely different operating system that means that the developers 
get no help from the core Windows developers (The Chinese Wall?). 
Here Microsoft has succeeded only because they have the best product 
of its type on the Mac. There is no way to stop anyone from cloning 
Office. Good luck to anyone that tries. The product is so massive 
you would need a small army of developers to do it. There is a clone 
of Outlook for the Linux operating system from Ximian (http://
www.ximian.com). Microsoft has not stopped them from doing so. By 
the way, this company is cloning Microsoft's new .Net Framework for 
Linux, and as far as I know Microsoft is somehow lending support.
    Why would you want to allow someone to clone software from other 
companies? Where is there innovation in that? Sun Microsystems 
offers Star Office for free, developed by open source developers. It 
is compatible with the Office file formats which Microsoft 
publishes. Why aren?t companies dumping Office for Star Office in 
droves when Microsoft charges several hundred dollars? It's because 
over the years programs like Word have evolved to be much more than 
a word processor. The programs in Office work together to build 
entire applications based on all of the pieces. You can open up a 
Word document and in it could be an Excel spreadsheet that you can 
update without ever knowing you were using Excel. This has evolved 
over the years and is by no means trivial to do.
    As far as the logic that it is too expensive for companies to 
change to a free product because of training costs, I?m not buying 
that. Is that supposed to be Microsoft's fault? In a recent 
interview, Scott McNealy from Sun Microsystems said that large 
corporations aren?t using Star Office mainly because it is free and 
the customers didn?t think Sun would be committed to supporting a 
free product. So now Sun is contemplating charging for it.
    2) Allow for a stripped down version of Windows at a cheaper 
price. What for? Microsoft spends a lot of R&D time and money 
developing the extras that they give you for free. So if you got a 
version without the freebies does this mean Microsoft has to pay for 
not putting in programs that they are giving away? Here is the 
problem with including only products from other companies? 
Microsoft's updates to IE, Media Player, etc. are always free for 
the downloading. RealPlayer, for example, offers a functional yet 
hobbled version of their software and then gets you to pay for 
upgrades and newer versions. So does Opera with their web browser. 
So where is the consumer winning here? With MS I get the feature 
complete versions of a browser and Media Player for free, with the 
competitors what initially is free may not be over time if I want 
versions with more features.
    I think what Microsoft did with the PC manufacturers was a great 
idea: Include all of their products but put whatever competitor's 
products you want in also.
    3) Make IE an open source product. Why? That browser is still 
the best browser out there. Mozilla is open source and is free. Why 
aren't people downloading that in droves?
    Here is a little software history for you.
    Wordstar was the leading word processor. They got fat and happy 
with their product and did not update it. Along comes Word Perfect 
with many new features. Bye, bye Wordstar.
    Microsoft releases Windows 3.1. Word Perfect does not create a 
windows version. Microsoft releases Word for Windows and it is a 
hit. Word Perfect releases a Windows version 2 years later full of 
bugs. Bye, bye Word Perfect. Corel owns Word Perfect now. They tried 
to create a Java version of it so it would run on any computer. You 
know what they found? Although Java is great for backroom systems, 
the front end interface that a user sees is way to slow to be 
usable. Sun Microsystems? Star Office, which works on any computer, 
still needs to have direct ties to the platform it is running on to 
be usable. Shame on Microsoft for writing great software that runs 
on Windows.
    Microsoft releases Windows 3.1. Lotus, after being begged by 
Microsoft to do a Windows version to prove the value of Windows, 
does not. Microsoft releases Excel for Windows, which was already on 
the Macintosh for years, and it is a hit. Lotus releases a Windows 
version 2 years later full of bugs. Bye, bye Lotus 123. Ashton Tare 
had a program called dbase III Plus. They got fat and happy with 
their product and did not update it. Along comes Foxpro from Fox 
software and Clipper from Nantucket software. Bye, bye dbase. 
Microsoft did buy Fox many years later. Computer Associates bought 
Clipper. Borland bought dbase, released a lousy version 4, tried to 
release version 5.
    See the pattern yet? Stay with me now.
    Netscape releases Navigator, a web browser and sells millions at 
50 bucks a pop, gets fat and happy with their product and did not 
update it. Microsoft releases a better browser called IE 4. 
Netscape, still fat and happy with their product, does not update 
it. AOL builds their client software around IE. Microsoft releases 
IE 5 with excellent functionality and great hooks for developers 
trying to build browser applications. Netscape, still fat and happy 
with their product, does not update it but decides to give it away. 
Netscape gets bought by AOL. Microsoft releases IE 5.5 with even 
better features and developer hooks. AOL releases another version of 
their client using IE, not their own. Netscape/AOL releases version 
6. Full of bugs and slow as hell. A year later Netscape/AOL releases 
6.1, slightly better. AOL client 7.0 released, still using IE I 
think. Netscape/AOL releases 6.2, finally acceptable.
    Oh, and before I forget. Because Netscape 4.x was such a lousy 
browser, companies waste millions in development costs trying to 
keep websites and web applications compatible with it and the newer 
browsers. As for the innovative features and improvements that 
Microsoft put into their browser, most have been adapted by the W3C 
standards body. All of the newest browsers support those features. 
As a matter of fact, the new Netscape boasts that they are 100% 
standards compliant, but they have implemented a few non standard 
Microsoft features that they feel are very useful.
    Why should they release an open source version of it? Did you 
know that under Windows developers can build IE right into their 
applications? That means a developer can use Microsoft's product to 
enhance their own. Not one of the other browsers does that! You see, 
where Netscape targeted the consumer, Microsoft targeted the 
consumer as well as the developer that has to create the 
applications the consumer uses.
    So what has Microsoft done wrong here? Oh, yeah, they gave us a 
free browser with Windows.
    So in closing I would like to say that I think the nine states 
are really going radical here, and I now think it is a witch hunt. I 
almost want to compare it to what happened with the tobacco 
companies. Microsoft is sitting there with 30 billion dollars in the 
bank and people want some of it. To me the feds have gotten about 
all that is worth getting. I could go on and on but I won?t. I hope 
that you will at least consider my comments. In case you didn?t 
notice, I am a software developer. My experience is mostly with 
Microsoft products, but I have done development using Sun and 
Netscape products also. I would appreciate a confirmation that you 
have received this email. If you would like to contact me please 
feel free to do so.
    Paul Speranza
    Vice President
    All Systems Go, Inc
    (203)469-;2315



MTC-00028996

From: Randy Pipal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:45pm
Subject: Microsoft
Randall M. Pipal
2350 E. Apricot Dr.
Meridian, ID 83642
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As a businessman, I don't understand why the government needed 
to interfere with the business practices of Microsoft. After all, 
Microsoft is a solid company that puts out a good product, is vital 
to the economy, and is vital to the tech industry. If Microsoft is 
not allowed to stand strong, I am afraid for what effect it could 
have on the economy.
    Microsoft has been more than willing to come to an agreement in 
order to facilitate this suit. It seems their efforts are futile 
since no one seems to want to end this case. Not only did Microsoft 
agree to the establishment of a technical committee that will 
monitor Microsoft's compliance with the settlement and assist with 
any disputes, they also agreed that if a third party's exercise of 
any options in the settlement would infringe on any of Microsoft's 
intellectual property rights, Microsoft would provide them with a 
license

[[Page 28491]]

to the necessary intellectual property on non-discriminatory terms. 
That seems more than fair to me.
    Let's move on. The economy needs it. Thanks.
    cc: Senator Larry Craig
    Sincerely,
    Randall Pipal
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00028997

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:47pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    This case should be settled immediately before any further 
damage is done to the economy.



MTC-00028998

From: Jeff Beitzel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a programmer and system administrator, the Microsoft 
judgement will impact me greatly. I have been working with both 
Microsoft and non-Microsoft products for over 5 years, and in that 
time I have seen a trend in the software being used. As a system 
administrator, the integration that Microsoft offers makes my 
administrative tasks easier. Setup, as well as maintenance, is 
easier in Microsoft products than in some of competitors, like 
Oracle, Sun, Netscape, and Linux. The time savings I gain make me 
more productive. As a programmer, Microsoft products show a 
tremendous amount of innovation not seen elsewhere. Microsoft has 
often been accused of breaking standards, but it should be noted 
that they typically embrace and extend. They take off where 
standards fall short, they allow the products I write to be better. 
To me, that innovation they provide is of utmost importance. Also, 
when doing web-development, Netscape is a horrendous product to work 
with. Microsoft didn't kill Netscape, Netscape committed suicide by 
refusing to improve its product and listen to its customers. On a 
more personal side, I am often recruited to help out non-computer 
literate friends and family, they need the ease of use, and pricing 
of Micorosft. Without Microsoft PCs would not be commonplace, but 
relegated to the hobbists and professionals. Microsoft has made this 
a connected world because they have given us what we want.
    This whole anti-trust situation that has me greatly troubled, as 
a consumer, person, and somone who creates. It is that the 
government has abandoned its duty to protect successful people and 
their property, and chosen to persecute them. The fact is Microsoft, 
by its own blood, sweat, and tears created its products, and by 
right has sole ability to decide what to do with its property. The 
government has proceeded on a witch hunt led by Microsoft's failed 
competitors under the guise of ``protecting the 
consumer'', the only people trying to be protected are lacking 
competitors who would rather pull success down than actually work 
for success. I resent the implication made by those arguing against 
Microsoft that I am a helpless victim incapable of making decisions 
for myself. I use Microsoft products because they are the best 
available to me. If Netscape, Oracle, or Linux met my needs I'd use 
them; but they don't. Microsoft is a company that should be 
commended for its success and supported by the government, not 
beaten down by it.
    It is because of the above I say, ``Leave Microsoft 
Alone.'' and do not place regulations or restrictions upon 
them. They are a company that has made my life better, not worse. 
The likes of Oracle, Sun, Netscape, Linux, and the other whiners 
would do well to take a lesson from Microsoft's playbook: Innovate, 
the consumer appreciates that. America needs that.
    Sincerly,
    Jeff Beitzel (Concerned American and Consumer)
    CC:[email protected]@
inetgw



MTC-00028999

From: Anthony Mangan
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 7:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Anthony Mangan
155 Quail Hollow Drive
San Jose, Ca 95128-;4544
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 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,
    Anthony Mangan



MTC-00029000

From: Charles Buzbee
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 7:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Charles Buzbee
2188 SW 55th. St.
Redmond, OR 97756
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 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,
    Charles L. Buzbee



MTC-00029001

From: Nancy Ward
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I write, as a private citizen, to oppose the Justice 
Department's proposed Microsoft Settlement, currently under review.. 
I believe that Microsoft has a history of stifling innovation in 
computer technology, thus harming individual consumers and the 
national economy. An atmospher in which witnesses of Microsoft's 
violations are afraid to inform law enforcement officials of their 
knowledge, which has existed in this country, is harmful to the 
computer tecchnological industry, as well as law enforcement and 
belief in the efficacy of the justice system in our country.
    Since the settlement does virtually nothing to protect computer 
manufacturers and others from Microsoft's retaliation, those who 
defy Microsoft's behavior and views of the technological world are 
left to become martyrs to what the legislation prohibiting 
monopolies was designed to prevent.
    Remedies proposed by the nine state attorney generals who are 
still plaintiffs would genuinely constrain Microsoft from its unfair 
business practices and liberate the technological industry from 
Microsoft's shadow of fear. Left unchecked that shadow will grow and 
expand into other areas--;why wouldn't it, if there's nothing to 
stop it, nothing to challenge the unfair and illegal behavior? The 
existence of such a monopolistic entity is a threat to the well-

[[Page 28492]]

being of all who challenge it in the future, and all who would 
strive for a different and better industry.
    Send a message, that justice in the USA is not dead, a commodity 
sold to the highest bidder, or a kickback to the highest political 
contributor. Help us be free of this monstrous, harmful entity. Let 
innovation flourish in this once dynamic field. By freeing the 
development and exchange of ideas in the technological field, you 
will help us all to flourish.
    Thank you for the opportunity to present my comments.
    Nancy Ward
    9802 SE Dundee Drive
    Portland, OR 97266
    email: [email protected]
From: J Surlow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jan 28, 2002
    To Whom It May Concern,
    The Microsoft settlement does nothing to end the monopoly that 
they are. If nothing is done about that now, will anything ever be 
done? Can anything stop the predatory practices of this monopoly?
    James D. Surlow
    Broomfield, CO 80020



MTC-00029003

From: Joseph W Pfahnl
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 7:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joseph W Pfahnl
2197 Glenkirk Dr
San Jose, CA 95124
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 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,
    Joseph W Pfahnl



MTC-00029004

From: Brian Trotter
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 7:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Brian Trotter
304 Chambers Rd.
Arab, AL 35016
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 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,
    Brian Trotter



MTC-00029005

From: Don Alvarez
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 7:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Don Alvarez
7640 N. Quail Ridge Dr.
Tucson, AZ 85743
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 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.
    A Very Concerned American!!
    Don Alvarez



MTC-00029006

From: Allen L Plitt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:53pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    Please end all litigation quickly. The longer this goes on, the 
more rediculous it gets. We are now asking a company's competitors 
what punishment they desire levied because they cannot produce a 
better product. What good is that?



MTC-00029007

FROM: Richard Duncan
TO: MS ATR
DATE: 1/28/02 7:53pm
SUBJECT: Microsoft Settlement
Richard J. Duncan
9302 red-Wood Road, A-304
Redmond, WA 98052
425-;830-;2202
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am in favor of the Microsoft antitrust settlement agreement. 
the terms of the settlement agreement are reasonable, and will 
appropriately address the concerns raised about anticompetitive 
business practices. Continued litigation will not produce a better 
result. Addressing the allegation that they have acted in a 
predatory manner, Microsoft has agreed not to enter into contracts 
that will obligate third parties to exclusively distribute Windows. 
They have also agreed not to take retaliatory action against those 
who promote software that competes with Windows. The net result of 
the settlement agreement will be a more level playing field for 
Microsoft's competitirs. additionally, a technical committee will be 
established to monitor Microsoft's compliance wit the settlement 
agreement. any party who believes Microsoft has violated the terms 
of the settlement agreement may lodge a complaint with the technical 
committee. These types of safety mechanisms will ensure no further 
violations of antitrust laws occur.
    Given the vast array of concessions that have been made by 
Microsoft, no further litigation is warranted. I am hopeful the 
Department of Justice will remain committed to settling this case.
    Thank you for your time and attention.

[[Page 28493]]

    Sincerely,
    Richard Duncan



MTC-00029008

From: David Horrocks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Judge Kollar-Kotally
Re:Microsoft remedy
    As an IT professional I am writing to express my concern about 
the proposed Microsoft settlement. I work extensively with Microsoft 
at the local level in Philadelphia, and have given considerable 
thought to their market position. We depend on their products, and 
to some extent their good graces, for consulting revenue.
    I offer these thoughts:
    As an MBA student, I have analyzed Microsoft's channel strategy 
(document attached). It is clear that market dominance (i.e. 
monopoly) has led to changes in Microsoft's approach to the channel. 
The changes are generally not good for those of us on the receiving 
end. I don?t suggest that this is illegal, but offer it as evidence 
of the effects of monopoly.
    I believe an OS is a natural monopoly ? and product with a 
decreasing marginal cost of production would be expected to be, and 
software's marginal cost of production is pennies per copy. So 
Microsoft's current monopoly position is not necessarily the result 
of illegal activity. In fact, I would argue that their product 
positioning, marketing decisions, and coding talent have been the 
primary source of their success. Those are all admirable traits.
    Because the OS is a monopoly I would disagree strongly with 
Microsoft's critics would argue for a breakup. That would not serve 
the market or the consumers, and would only postpone the natural 
monopolistic state. One of the split up firms would win eventually.
    But, other natural monopolies are more heavily regulated, such 
as power delivery. Microsoft should be thoughtfully regulated.
    The proposed settlement is very minimal regulation, and not 
enough to protect the legitimate competitors Microsoft can, by 
virtue of its OS position, crush at will.
    I would hope that regulatory oversight would focus on protecting 
competitors from bundling that leverages the OS position. Force them 
to sell products rather than bundle them. Clearly bundling is just a 
means to defending market power.
    Examples of products that could be integrated but ought to be 
regulated include: terminal services (Citrix), media services (Real 
Player), offline storage, virus protection, systems management, and 
others.
    Thank you for your consideration of these issues,
    David Horrocks
    1010 Windsor Ave
    Dresher, PA 19025
    Mobile: (215)-;353-;1531



MTC-00029009

From: David Bowman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing during the public comment period in support of the 
settlement reached in the Microsoft antitrust case.
    The options for you are, as I understand them, to accept the 
settlement agreement reached or to return to Court for further 
litigation. In light of the state of our economy, continued 
litigation makes little sense. We cannot afford to keep Microsoft on 
the sidelines.
    Microsoft has agreed to make changes in the way it conducts 
business, which will be conducive to increased competition within 
the software industry and to economic growth. Microsoft's agreeing 
to allow computer makers the right to reconfigure Windows operating 
systems so as to promote non-Microsoft software should prove to be 
of immediate benefit to the economy.
    Please go forward with the settlement as soon as possible. It is 
in the public's best interest.
    Sincerely,
    David Bowman



MTC-00029010

From: russell a cox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:55pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Please accept the settlement offer that has been presented. It 
is time to move forward, not backwords.
    Thankyou
    MJCox



MTC-00029012

From: Ron Wike
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:56pm
Subject: Just a few comments about the Microsoft situation
    1. If you remove the deterrent from a crime, you might as well 
declare open-season on that same crime.
    2. It is a sad day for the United States of America when, on the 
day after a Christmas when almost every PC given as a present, is 
running software that has essentially been declared 
``broken'' by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the 
United States of America.
    3. Let us not forget who ultimately picks up the tab every time 
one of our major corporations, including the Pentagon of the United 
States of America and Microsoft itself, is at the mercy of anyone 
who is willing to take the time to read a book.
    4. Isn't it time to do something about this problem when the 
worldwide monetary damages caused by the vulnerabilities of 
Microsoft's software exceeds the total population of the world by 
several billion?
    5. Do we really want the future leaders of our country, who are 
currently coming up through the grades of our educational system, to 
be using software that has been declared a threat to the 
infrastructure of our own country by the National Infrastructure 
Protection Center of the United States of America?
    6. Microsoft marketed their latest ``innovated'' 
product known as Windows XP as the most secure operating system 
ever. It should be quite evident to you by this time that this is 
not the case. In fact, this situation is much the same as the 
proverbial used car salesman who insists that the speedometer has 
not been turned back. However, the final liability of Microsoft's 
behavior is yet to be known.
    URL's to substantiate the above points provided upon request. 
Since this is a matter of justice, and the ``J'' in DOJ 
stands for justice, I find it necessary to remind you that Abraham 
Lincoln declared that ``All men are created equal'' and 
that we have a pledge of allegiance to our flag which, although 
altered a few times over the past several decades, still ends with 
the phrase ``With liberty and justice for ALL''! 
Therefore, I encourage you to do your job and enforce the laws of 
the United States of America with equality and due justice. (Long 
overdue justice in my opinion). And, unlikely as it might be, it 
would sure be nice to require the company responsible for all the 
damage to pay for it (retroactive). If Mr. Gates/Microsoft think 
they are stimulating a faltering economy, then perhaps their vision 
is only short-term. In any case, isn't it a great way to erode 
consumer confidence? What difference is there between capitalism and 
communism when you are down to only one product and that product is 
not only seriously flawed, but also a threat to your own national 
security?
    Regards,
    Ronald E. Wike



MTC-00029013

From: Forest, Carl
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 7:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs and Madams:
    I used WordPerfect from 1987 through 2001 because it was by far 
the best word processing software available. Beginning sometime in 
the early to mid-90's, each time I bought a new computer, it came 
with Microsoft Word. Each time I bought a new computer, I asked if 
the vendor would send me the computer without Word and give me a 
small decrease in price. The sales people always said they could not 
do this. So, I got a computer with Word, and bought WordPerfect to 
put on it. Even though I tried Microsoft Word each time I bought a 
new computer, since the computer always had Word installed, I never 
used it because it was obviously inferior to WordPerfect. However, 
most other people, particularly corporations who watched their 
budgets, use the ``free'' Word program. Eventually, 
because it was ``free'', Word became the dominant word 
processing software. Then Microsoft began charging for it.
    Last year my company was purchased by a company that insisted 
that everyone use the same word processing software. As a result, I 
now accomplish about 20% less on the average when using word 
processing because Word is not capable of easily doing what 
WordPerfect can do seamlessly. Examples: 1. When you copy something 
from one Word document in say, Arial font, into another Word 
document with Arial Font, Word will change the font on you. You then 
have to highlight and change the font back to what it should be. 2. 
Paragraph numbering and bullets are so erratic in Word, that no one 
uses these functions--;with word, we regress

[[Page 28494]]

back to the 80's for automatic paragraph numbering. For example, 
when you insert a section in front of a newly numbered paragraph 
with nothing next to it, Word will attach it to the previous 
paragraph. When you save a document and reopen it, Word will often 
renumber the paragraphs in some bizarre way. 3. Word has many 
automatic functions that change things in the text, without your 
asking, and these are nearly impossible to turn off. 4. Word has 
inferior lists of symbols.
    The above are just a few of the problems with Word. Yet it is 
the dominant Word processor, not because it is better, but because 
of clear anti-trust activity.
    I believe that if the Government would do something so 
WordPerfect or some other word processor could really compete fairly 
against Microsoft, the productivity of this country would increase 
about 10%.
    Carl A. Forest
    Partner and Regional Manager, Boulder Office
    Patton Boggs LLP
    867 Coal Creek Circle, Suite 200
    Louisville, CO 80027
    Tel: (303) 379-;1114
    Fax: (303) 379-;1155



MTC-00029014

From: Bill & Sue Morgan
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 7:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Bill & Sue Morgan
4391 Nelson Siding Road
Cle Elum, WA 98922
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 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,
    Sue & Bill Morgan



MTC-00029015

From: William Lang
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 7:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
William Lang
976 Ferngate Drive
Franklin Square, NY 11010-;1804
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 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,
    William E.Lang



MTC-00029016

From: Larry See
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 7:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Larry See
3770 Presidential Corridor West
Caldwell, Tx 77836
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 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,
    Larry See



MTC-00029017

From: Morton Abramson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:01pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    My wife and I feel that it was a disgraceful waste of taxpayer 
money to initiate an antitrust suit against Microsoft three years 
ago.
    However, since a settlement exists that will finally end this 
case, we ask that you continue to support this settlement after the 
Tunney comment period.
    Some competitors and a few in the government are trying to have 
this settlement withdrawn and Microsoft brought back to court until 
a finish to this case that satisfies them is reached. Those opposed 
to the settlement contend the settlement is not harsh enough against 
Microsoft. However, this settlement will cause Microsoft to disclose 
more formerly secret design code information than any computer 
company has ever disclosed to others.
    Why, other than for selfish reasons, do opponents of the 
settlement think that this is inadequate? Why do they want to harm 
Microsoft? Punishment of success is not the American way! We urge 
you to ignore the anti-settlement argument.
    Three years and millions of dollars later, this case should end 
now at the federal level.
    America has suffered enough embarrassment over this politically-
motivated case.
    Sincerely,
    Morton & Marlene Abramson
    426 Green T Lake Blvd. West
    Hernando, MS 38632
    Phone 662-;429-;9488



MTC-00029018

From: Mark Mindenhall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I urge the court to reject the proposed settlement reached 
between Microsoft and the DOJ, and instead proceed with the 
settlement proposed by the nine states which did not join the DOJ 
settlement.
    I believe the nine states'' proposal constitutes a most 
reasonable remedy which will dramatically reduce Microsoft's 
monopoly power and dramatically enhance competition. Personally, I 
am more concerned about Microsoft's desktop monopoly (Win95, Win98, 
WinME, Win2000 Prof, WinXP Prof, WinXP Home, etc.) and office 
productivity monopoly (Microsoft

[[Page 28495]]

Office) than the strength of their server operating systems. These 
two monopolies are tightly coupled, and each helps to preserve the 
other. Office is so strong that its file formats (.doc, .xls, .ppt 
primarily) have become de facto standards for exchange of complex 
information between individuals and businesses. Any company wanting 
to compete with Office needs to fully support reading, editing, and 
writing documents using these file formats. However, Microsoft 
provides little documentation of these file formats, which results 
in competitors having to ``reverse engineer'' the files to 
understand how the information is stored.
    By simultaneously forcing Microsoft to reveal the details of 
their file formats, while also making Office available on competing 
platforms such as Linux and varieties of Unix, I think the 
states'' proposal would dramatically increase competition in 
the desktop OS market. Also, other applications would be able to 
ensure 100% compatibility with Office documents, which would create 
viable alternatives for creating and exchanging documents using the 
de facto standard Microsoft file formats.
    Mark Mindenhall



MTC-00029019

From: Merton Singer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
TO: Department of Justice
RE: Microsoft Settlement
    In my opinion, the settlement proposed for Microsoft is 
sufficient. In fact, it is already overkill. It must be kept in mind 
that the changes in our legal system have not, and cannot keep pace 
with the rapidly evolving changes in high technology. Microsoft 
might have somehow been in technical violation of our 
``traditional'' anti-trust laws. I'll admit that.
    However, had Microsoft been forced throughout its history to 
restrain itself in a literal sense to these laws, it undoubtedly 
would have never created all the outstanding computer systems and 
concepts, which most homes, businesses, medical facilities, schools, 
etc., in America can now afford.
    To punish Microsoft more severally than outlined in the present 
settlement proposal is analogous to rewarding other companies for 
their lack of vision, mediocrity, and/or lack of means or desire to 
compete in an extremely intangible, and risky market. Microsoft is 
too important an entity to be shackled because others cannot, for 
whatever reason, keep pace.
    Sincerely,
    Steve Singer
    105 Biltmore Drive #203
    San Antonio, TX 78213



MTC-00029020

From: Gilbert Andreen
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 7:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gilbert Andreen
235 Rockhill Drive
San Antonio, TX 78209
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 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,
    G. M. Andreen



MTC-00029021

From: Greg Piper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the Honorable Judge Kollar-Kotelly:
    The Discovery Institute would like to affirm to the court its 
support for the proposed Microsoft antitrust settlement. Our mission 
is to ``make a positive vision of the future practical,'' 
and we believe that while any settlement is far from perfect, this 
particular settlement is very practical and will contribute 
positively to economic stabilization and growth in America as well 
as to technological innovation in the public interest--;causes 
we have advocated from the Institute1s debut 12 years ago.
    Microsoft is the leading player in the software industry, and 
its actions as well as actions against the company will have a 
substantial ripple effect throughout the technology sector and 
economy at large. Its success has led the way in a growing and 
stable market for software products that has carried through the 
collapse of most dot-com enterprises and contributed to record 
government surpluses until now. Microsoft1s competitors have the 
right to challenge its market supremacy with their own products and 
innovations, but in recent years the nature of their competition has 
largely revolved around government intervention initiated and 
prodded on by the competitors. AOL Time Warner lately has invested 
at least as much time and energy in lobbying Washington as in 
developing attractive and useful products. It purchased Microsoft1s 
rival Netscape, which makes a browser that is more expensive than 
and inarguably inferior to Microsoft1s. It didn1t bother to promote 
the acquisition to its massive AOL audience, preferring to blame its 
ineptitude on a rival. This reflects a strategy used by the fallen 
Enron Corp., which extolled the virtues of a deregulated energy 
market while lobbying government for legal restrictions on its 
market rivals. Enron1s demise has yet to show serious economic 
damage. But the assault against Microsoft, in our judgment, has 
contributed to the current technology sector depression and to 
recession in the economy as a whole. It is time to call it off.
    Economic success rests not only on prudential government 
regulation, but on a company1s motivation to continually improve its 
products and make innovations that will attract more consumers. 
Software users, whether individuals or business, have gradually been 
leaving the tech market for the past few years because a lack of 
innovation has decreased any incentive to upgrade their equipment. 
Massive discounts on computers and accessories can stem the 
technology exodus for only so long.
    The proposed settlement has been careful to limit the damage to 
Microsoft while redressing its legal breaches in software design and 
marketing, and any further litigation is likely to devolve into 
jockeying for advantage between rival corporations, absent of any 
public interest. For the sake of both the tech sector and the 
economy that responds so sensitively to its sways, this practical 
and evenhanded settlement should be enacted expeditiously.
    Bruce Chapman, President
    Greg Piper, Director of Communications



MTC-00029022

From: Robert L. Brown
To: Microsoft ATR,Ford James F.
Date: 1/28/02 8:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement is, in itself, a reward for Microsoft's anti 
competitive activities. I hope the court holds Microsoft to a trial 
to hear the evidence of Damages. The company is unbelievable, as the 
evidence showed during the trial. If the company can not be broken 
up it should be punished so severely, based upon it's assets, that 
no other company will consider doing the same as Microsoft in its 
aggressive anti competitive actions.
    This is just my opinion based upon the many pages of material I 
read about the trial and my own thoughts as to why some programs 
like WordPerfect were caused problems by the Operating System while 
``Word'' was not.
    Robert L. Brown
    [email protected]
    P. O. Box 358
    Arnold, MO 63010
    636-;296-;8260
    FAX 636-;296-;0925



MTC-00029023

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:

[[Page 28496]]

    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,
    Roger Yurczyk
    23033 164th SE
    Kent, WA 98042



MTC-00029024

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Marilyn Baldwin
19 Seaview Avenue
Cranston, RI 02905
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The case against Microsoft has been controversial. As a 
concerned citizen, I have followed the case against Microsoft with 
much interest. While I use Microsoft products, I do believe that at 
its pinnacle Microsoft may have engaged in anticompetitive 
practices. The settlement agreement reached last November is 
equitable indeed, and if enacted, will have many benefits for the 
technology sector. Thus, I urge the Justice Department to enact the 
settlement at the end of January.
    To expand, the terms of the settlement will benefit consumers, 
developers, and manufacturers in the technology industries. With the 
interim release of Windows XP, users of the operating system will be 
able to reconfigure their desktop according to their own needs. 
Thus, users will be able to delete Microsoft software from Windows 
and add competing software at their own discretion. In addition, 
developers will benefit from the information disclosure of the 
protocols and interfaces internal to Windows. This information 
enables developers to produce software that is more compatible with 
the Windows operating system. Further, PC manufacturers will be 
given broad new rights to market competing software without fear of 
Microsoft retaliation.
    Much, then, will change with the implementation of the 
settlement. Given the decline in the technology markets in recent 
years, I believe that this settlement will encourage confidence in 
the markets once more. Again, I urge the Justice Department to enact 
the settlement. Thank you for your time regarding this issue.
    Sincerely,
    Marilyn Baldwin



MTC-00029025

From: Rody P. Cox
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 7:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Rody P. Cox
#5 Connaught Ct.
Dallas, Tx 75225
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 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,
    Dr. and Mrs. Rody P. Cox



MTC-00029026

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:07pm
Subject: microsft settlement
    I do not believe there is anything wrong with Micrsofts approach 
to the market, infact I think Microsoft's is extremely customer 
oriented & offers valuble products to all of us that use 
computers & the internet.



MTC-00029027

From: 
[email protected]@inet
gw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:03pm
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,
    Dr. David Fisher
    12921 Dale St #82
    Garden Grove, CA 92841-;5034



MTC-00029028

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Why does a Microsoft Certified Professional oppose the proposed 
Microsoft-DOJ settlement?
    [1] Because Microsoft is an unabashed monopolist that squelches 
competition--;and innovation--;in a field that I chose to 
enter back in the ``DOS Days''; when I (still) aspired to 
be affiliated with a company that ``demystified'' personal 
computers, and helped to bring them into small companies and 
people's homes at an affordable price. Sadly, those days are long 
gone...
    [2] I could write a LONG list of the companies and products that 
died in the Microsoft stranglehold, but I believe DOJ already has 
that information in hand from the legal proceedings.
    [3] I urge DOJ to force Microsoft to make all of it's API and 
related code information for Windows 98 / Me / 2000 / XP open to 
developers; or, those code and ``hidden'' API's in the 
Office 2000 / XP suite that prevent seamless integration with other 
suites (Corel, Lotus, Star, etc.).
    (As an aside, I am so outraged by Microsoft's behavior that I 
have become a very vocal advocate for open source operating systems 
and office automation applications, and I run these on every machine 
that I can. But even the Linux zealots can't overcome the Microsoft 
``machine''!)
    Jeffrey W. Stewart, MCP (#2110349)
    [email protected]
    Montgomery, AL
    [BBsPC/PII266]



MTC-00029029

From: Shiven Malhotra
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:08pm
Subject: Microsoft's Monopoly
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I have been a Microsoft user since I was ten years old. For th 
longest time I believed that computers were meant to be used only by 
those who can understand, or know how to use them. But as I grew 
older I realised that technology has no place in our world unless it 
can be applied to our everyday lives and to do that technology has 
to be accessable to those who don't want to understand how the 
technology achieves the outcome.
    I switched to the Macintosh Operating System once I reached 
college. I realised that Microsoft has never been an innovator in

[[Page 28497]]

computer technology but it has always known how to market its 
products well. But marketing an inferior product is not illelage 
PREVENTING COMPETITION IS!!
    Innovation comes form those how feel that the status quo is not 
meeting the needs of the common man. Innovators give us a brand new 
way at looking at ideas and concepts. When a company comes uo with 
an idea that threatenes the status quo, the status quo tries to 
prevent the spread of the idea. Microsoft achieves this by crushing 
the competition, or just making the competitive product incompatible 
with the Microsoft Operating System.
    In Saudi Arabia a years ago WordPerfect was going to release an 
arabic version of its word processor that was far superior to 
Microsoft Word. Microsoft decided to preempt WordPerfect by 
releasing its version of Word in Arabic first. The only problem was 
that though the box of the software was in arabic, inside THE 
VERSION WAS IN ENGLISH. Microsoft provided a slip for a free version 
of the arabic software once it had completed it. BUT it took nearly 
3 years for the Arabic version to come out!!! People bought the 
software believing that the software inside was in their native 
language but were deceived!!
    In Bill Gates book, ``The Road Ahead'', in the 
original version he believed that the Internet was insignificant!! 
Yet when Netscape posed a real challange to Microsoft, Mr. Gates 
went on the offensive by making the Netscape browser less compatible 
with the Microsoft Operating System, while its browser was brought 
to the market.
    Mr. Gates says that WindowsXP is the ``most secure 
Operating System'' that Microsoft has ever built, yet hackers 
have proven him wrong at every turn. Hackers even hacked into 
Microsoft's ow website. The FBI issued a statement that the 
Microsoft Operating System was not to be used, because of security 
concerns.
    Competition breeds quality in products deliverd and services 
rendered. I am originally from India. I have been witness to the 
changes in the quality of products and services in my country. The 
lack of competition had made our companies compalicent. The level of 
services the monopoly companies provided was the only level of 
service the consumer experienced. There is no surprise that the 
consumer believed that the level of service was good. After all SOME 
SERVICE IS BETTER THAN NO SERVICE!!!
    Today competition is starting to flourish in India. This has 
woken up these sleeping giants. They now have to compete with the 
innovators and new entrants into the market, or become part of 
history. The consumer, once given a choice will go to the supplier 
he or she feels best meets their needs. But they will not have this 
option if they cannot see past the one supplier market!!
    Microsoft's main aim is to sheild the consumers from ever seeing 
any other possibilities in the market, and from preventing these 
possibilities from ever materialising.
    This brings to mind a picture of a dragon protecting a bridge. 
One one side are the innovators and the competition and the other 
side are the consumers. To get to the consumers the innovators and 
competitors have to survive the dragon's displeasure. Even if they 
manage to get past the dragon, the state in which they get past no 
longer makes them viable competitors who can make a material 
difference in the the market.
    Microsoft is an innovator is an OXYMORON!!
    Throughout history people in power have been scared by new 
ideas. They have tried to discredit the idea or discredit the person 
with the idea. Gallalio discovered that the Earth goes around the 
Sun. He was burned at the stake for sticking to the truth.
    PLEASE DON'T LET MICROSOFT PREVENT REAL CHANGE FROM COMING THE 
INDUSTRY!! THEY HAVE FINANCIAL POWER, DON'T BACK THEM UP WITH LEGAL 
FREEDOM!!
    ``Nothing in this world is so powerful as an idea whose 
time has come''--;Victor Hugo
    It's time we let Microsoft know that their Monopolistic 
Strategies will not be tolerated by the United States!!
    Thank You,
    Shiven Malhotra



MTC-00029030

From: Paul Holwadel
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 8:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Paul Holwadel
1391 S.O. Blvd.
Pompano Bch. , Fl 33062
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 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,
    Dr. Paul Holwadel



MTC-00029031

From: Louie Swalby
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:08pm
Subject: Comment on MS Antitrust case
    The Honorable US District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly,
    I wish to express my concern over Microsoft's initial proposal 
to satisfy its antitrust penalty by providing second hand computer 
hardware in schools and then its own operating system and associated 
software applications.
    This is pathetic of them to believe that the judicial system as 
well as the public would believe that this is fair. Rather, it only 
furthers their monopoly both in the schools and the future job 
market, where these ``Microsoft schooled'' students will 
know of no other choices.
    Let Microsoft provide hardware (either PCs, or MACs), and let 
them provide the hardware for providing networking to the schools. 
Let the schools choose the operating system (MAC, Linux, or 
Microsoft). I encourage you to seriously consider the offer by Red 
Hat's president to provide the free Linux OS to all schools.
    The United States is synonymous with the idea of choices, a 
democracy provides for choices.
    Microsoft has one choice: theirs. I urge you to reject the 
proposal put forward by Microsoft in this antitrust settlement.
    Respectfully,



MTC-00029032

From: W R Jackson, Jr.
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 8:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
W R Jackson, Jr.
55 Burbank Lane
Yarmouth, ME 04096
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 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

[[Page 28498]]

entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and competitive 
products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    W R Jackson Jr



MTC-00029033

From: James Wyatt
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 8:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
James Wyatt
7563 Wesselman Road
Cleves, Oh 45002-;8604
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 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,
    James A Wyatt



MTC-00029034

From: Michael Robertson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Statement of Michael Robertson, CEO, Lindows.com, Inc.
    1. I am the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Lindows.com, 
Inc. (``Lindows.com'') and have been employed in that 
capacity since the company's inception in 2001. I have previously 
served as founder, CEO and Chairman of MP3.com, an Internet-based 
digital music storage, management, delivery and promotion company 
MP3.com, since March of 1998. MP3.com was sold to Viviendi/Universal 
on August 29, 2001. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth 
herein and, if called as witness, I could and would competently 
testify thereto.
    2. Lindows.com, Inc. is a software company currently developing 
a new personal computer operating system (``OS''), called 
LindowsOS, that has the ability to run applications written for both 
the Linux and Microsoft Windows operating systems. Before LindowsOS, 
a Linux application would run only on a Linux-based operating 
system, and a Microsoft Windows-based application would run only on 
a Microsoft Windows operating system.
    3. In cooperation with the many open source community 
programmers, Lindows.com's software engineers have developed a 
Linux-based operating system with over ten million lines of code, 
which will incorporate the performance, stability, and secuirty of 
Linux while being able to run popular Microsoft Windows-compatible 
applications, as well as all Linux applications. LindowsOS is the 
commercial culmination of years of computer science research by 
Lindows.com and other software companies, seeking to harmonize use 
of the two most common, but incompatible, computer operating 
systems.
    4. Computer and electronics hardware and software cannot 
function as standalone products. They are integral pieces of a 
complex environment that businesses and consumers use to be 
productive, connected, or entertained. Each piece is required to 
interoperate with the other to be useful to a computer user. 
Microsoft's software dominance over the last ten years has taken 
what was once a rich ecosystem of software and hardware innovation 
and homogenized it as competitors have been legally and illegally 
put out of business. This ``ethnic cleansing'' of computer 
software has left Microsoft and its Win-32 based language, the 
universal operating system to which any company hoping to penetrate 
computing OS markets must conform. In other words, for a software 
company to compete they must speak ``Microsoft'' If steps 
are not put into place now to allow others to obtain a dictionary of 
the language AND be able to speak it without suffering 
repercussions, there will be no competition to Microsoft for the 
foreseeable future. If companies other than Microsoft are allowed to 
speak this language, there will be a resurgence of competition and 
innovation in computer and electronic software and hardware.
    5. This ``dictionary'' which Microsoft maintains is 
not the source code to its operating system or middleware, but 
rather the blueprint for communicating with those products--;the 
APIs. Microsoft's knowledge and control unpublished APIs has allowed 
it to exert enormous control over how well applications running on a 
Windows-based platform work. For instance, Microsoft's 
``Word'' word processing program now dominates the word 
processor market simply because Microsoft itself had nearly 
exclusive access to its own APIs for years, giving it an advantage 
in designing its products to perform well with its operating system. 
It has exercised this same ``API control'' strategey with 
many other applications, dominating, for instance, the spreadsheet 
(Excel) Internet browser (Explorer), presentations (PowerPoint), and 
media player (Media Player) applications.
    6. Even though Microsoft today publishes a tiny number of APIs, 
it continues to maintain an advantage over competing operating 
system manufacturers such as Lindows.com and software developers 
because it fails to disclose information sufficient to allow 
competitors to design software which fully supports the APIs of the 
application software, disk formats and file formats. As a result, 
competing operating system software manufacturers are forced to 
engage in an expensive process of blindly attempting to decipher 
Microsoft's APIs through trial and error. Most companies abandon the 
process after costly investments and the few that have produced 
products are very limited in their functionality.
    7. Microsoft also exerts enormous anti-competitive influence 
over OEM hardware manufacturers'' configurations of their own 
hard drives which are controlled by Microsoft's operating system. 
Since the vast majority of computers shipped over the last 10 years 
have Microsoft Windows operating system preinstalled, the 
accompanying hard disks are configured with either vfat or NTFS 
configurations. The specifications for NTFS and vfat are not 
published and known only by Microsoft. As with the APIs, because 
only Microsoft has access to and dictates the specifications for 
controlling the hard drives installed in these computers, competing 
operating systems are effectively blocked from information critical 
to designing effective and stable systems.
    8. To restore competition, the ``Microsoft 
dictionary'' should be made public. If the language is secret, 
potential competitors will not be able to speak the common language 
used by computer hardware and software, and Microsoft alone will 
continue to exert enormous influence by selecting who can (and 
can't) know this language. Microsoft must not be able to gain 
advantage by delaying publication of the common language, so that 
competitors will have fair opportunity to meet Microsoft to market 
with products. Full disclosure of all current and future proposed 
file formats (including VBA scripting language for full PowerPoint 
compatibility), as well as future updates in advance of commercial 
releases are necessary to restore balance.
    9. Requiring Microsoft to share the language its interfaces use 
does not dilute the value of what Microsoft creates, as Microsoft is 
allowed to maintain the proprietary nature of the code for its 
various programs. Requiring Microsoft to disclose the common 
language its programs use to interact with other programs and with 
computer hardware permits independent companies to use this common 
language to create innovative applications which can fairly compete 
with Microsoft in the open marketplace, avoiding excessive 
government monitoring and entanglement.
    10. While Microsoft argues that it is continuing to innovate, 
the fact is that all operating systems vendors are innovating, but 
because Microsoft controls 95% of the market already, and has been 
held to have consistently abused that market power to maintain its 
monopoly, Microsoft is the de facto standard regardless of the 
comparative benefits of its product. Indeed, recent lapses in the 
security of Microsoft's XP products have spotlighted just one of the 
many

[[Page 28499]]

comparative deficiencies of Microsoft's operating system. Yet, 
despite the fact that Linux-based operating systems are more secure, 
more stable, and more affordable for many applications, Microsoft's 
system continues to dominate. This can only be due to the absence of 
fair market conditions.
    11. Ultimately consumers will benefit as they see enjoy more 
product choices, which will control pricing through natural market 
forces. The open source community developing applications for the 
Linux operating system is a prime example of the myriad of programs 
and applications which interface sharing can inspire. Thousands of 
programs currently exist in this environment, created by individuals 
and major corporations alike, all of which are designed to enhance 
the functionality of computing.
    12. I strongly urge that Microsoft required to publish the 
specifications for file formats, hard disk formats and programming 
APIs. With advance and complete disclosure of the Microsoft 
programming APIs, file formats and disk formats, and with the 
requisite protection to implement them in the course of building a 
business, it is possible to restore competition to the computing 
environment.
    I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true 
and correct. Executed in San Diego, California, this 28th day of 
January, 2002.



MTC-00029035

From: Steve Riddle
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 8:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Steve Riddle
8608 Twilight Drive West
Ft. Worth, TX 76116-;7661
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 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,
    Steve Riddle



MTC-00029036

From: Harry Alford
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 8:03pm
Subject: Microsoft filing Kansas from National Black Chamber of 
Commerce
1350 Connecticut Ave NW Suite 825
Washington, DC 20036
202-;466-;6888 202-;466-;4918 fax
January 28, 2002
Email Address: 
 
[email protected]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The National Black Chamber of Commerce (NBCC) promotes the 
interests of the more than 64,000 Black-owned businesses in the 
United States. We have 201 affiliated chapters located in 40 states, 
including Kansas, and eight countries.
    Although NBCC generally supports allowing the market to sort out 
competitive issues between corporations, we believe that in this 
case it is simply too late for self-regulation. Microsoft has 
stifled competition at every turn in its history. It is time for a 
change. Unfortunately, the proposed settlement between Microsoft and 
the Department of Justice will not effect this change. It is far too 
weak ? its requirements are not expansive enough and its enforcement 
mechanism is not strict enough.
    We agree with Attorney General Carla J. Stovall's position that 
more must be done to rein in Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. 
Specifically, to promote competition and innovation, and provide 
alternatives to consumers, Microsoft should be required to:
    * Offer competing developers a stand-alone, unbundled version of 
Windows without built-in software
    * Share the code for its Internet browser, Internet Explorer, 
with other software developers.
    * Auction to potential competitors the right to create the 
Office software suite to operate on different operating system 
platforms.
    * Include Sun Microsystems? version of Java software in its 
latest operation system, Windows XP.
    Finally, we believe that the court should implement an effective 
means of imposing punishment in the event of noncompliance and that 
empower a court-appointed master to oversee the settlement. As it 
stands now, there is not only no effective punishment mechanism, 
there is no one even there to enforce the settlement!
    In closing, I would just like to reiterate our support for these 
additional measures to be included in the final settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Harry C. Alford
    Harry C. Alford
    President & CEO



MTC-00029037

From: Ken Demark
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:09pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Stop harrassing Microsoft, let the current judgment stand.
    Ken Demark
    CEO
    BOLD Technologies, Inc.



MTC-00029038

From: 
[email protected]@in
etgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Judge Kollar-Kotelly and whom it may concern,
    I have been Microsoft Certified Professional since 1993. I've 
used many Microsoft products in that time. I will continue to do so; 
either by personal choice or corporate mandate. I'm finding that my 
non-Microsoft choices are less and less each year.
    I work for a Fortune 500 company, using Microsoft's Outlook 
email client, the number one propagator of modern computer worms, 
viral or not. I am forced to use the very product that causes myself 
and my company's resources so much energy to clean up after, time 
and time again. Although Outlook Express is included on my personal 
system, I have no such worries about email worms at home as I choose 
to use a non-Microsoft mail package outside of work.
    The proposed settlement does nothing to curb Microsoft's future 
actions, certainly does nothing to reprimand past actions, and the 
proof of both is that even in light of Judge Jackson's findings, and 
the proposed settlement, it hasn't changed any of it's illegal 
monopolistic leveraging. That alone should be proof that the 
proposed settlement is entirely un-enforceable, and in-effectual. 
Without stronger measures Microsoft will continue down the course 
they've successfully navigated in the past, namely; Embrace, Extend, 
and Extinguish. Another concern I have with the PFJ is language 
which addresses competing ``commercial'' vendors. The fear 
of many is that this language fails to protect not-for-profit 
software projects from anti-competitive behavior. As not-for-profit 
computing has been equally harmed by Microsoft's anti-competitive 
practices, the PFS must explicitly grant not-for-profits equal 
remedy and protection.
    Regards,
    Robert Johnson
    [email protected]



MTC-00029039

From: Dale Snelling
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    FOR--;you're killing the economy.



MTC-00029040

From: William Aldridge
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 8:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
William Aldridge
6424 Brookshire St.
Fayetteville, NC 28314
January 28, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice
Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530

[[Page 28500]]

    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,
    William Aldridge



MTC-00029041

From: Robert Mellor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Your Honor,
    As a computer fanatic, student, and professional, I have watched 
Microsoft's practices with interest over the years. In 1995, 
Netscape was the superior browser and held the lion's share of the 
browser market. I feel that it is still the superior browser, but do 
to some shady tricks and arm-twisting by Microsoft, the market share 
has been reversed. As the complaint states, this is because Netscape 
and its support for applications that are not OS (operating system) 
dependant could threaten Microsoft's monopoly hold on the operating 
systems market. Operating systems like Linux Red Hat and Apple could 
actually gain a respectable share of the market, if not an even one.
    I actually like a lot of the products that Microsoft puts out. 
But I have watched other products that I like as well become victims 
of (what I believe to be) illegal contractual arm-twisting to 
prevent manufacturers of hardware from offering any 
``rival'' software. I hope that you will be able to do 
something about this injustice, as this country became great on the 
concept of competition. The industry as a whole would progress at a 
substantially increased rate, and consumers would also benefit from 
competitive pricing and an increased number of choices. I hope that 
you can reach a decision that will strengthen this country's 
historical commitment to fair and open market competition, something 
that this proposed settlement does not accomplish.
    Thank you for this opportunity to express my opinion,
    Robert H. Mellor, II
    Information System Support Coordinator
    CHEP
    Computer Network Systems Technology Student at ITT Technical 
Institute
    Graduating June, 2002



MTC-00029042

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:12pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    As chairman of Citizens Against Higher Taxes, a Pennsylvania 
public-interest group, I'd like to offer a brief comment on the 
proposed Microsoft settlement. I am a long-time user of Word Perfect 
and despise Microsoft Word; it really gripes me that Word has run 
rings around Word Perfect in the marketplace. I'm sure millions of 
other users of non-Microsoft products feel as I do. But we lost, 
fair and square, in the marketplace of consumer choice. Just because 
Microsoft is a successful company and produces an operating system 
and software that most people want to buy, is no reason to punish 
that success and hurt consumers.
    I have looked over the proposed settlement terms and it 
certainly seems to me that they clearly meet any reasonable standard 
of curbing potential anti-competitive actions while still preserving 
relatively free consumer choice.
    I would hope that the settlement is upheld, so an innovative and 
successful company can go about the business of providing ever-newer 
and better products that appeal to many people (though not 
especially to me).
    James H. Broussard, Chairman
    Citizens Against Higher Taxes



MTC-00029043

From: 
[email protected]@inetg
w
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
10 Red Oak Court
Voorhees, NJ 08043
January 25, 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 antitrust dispute. I support Microsoft in this dispute, 
and I feel that the litigation that has gone on for three years is 
expensive and will negatively impact consumers. I support the 
settlement that was reached in November as a means to end this 
dispute.
    This settlement will serve in the best public interest. 
Microsoft has agreed to all terms of this agreement, including: 
sharing information with competitors regarding certain internal 
interfaces included within Windows and any protocols implemented in 
Windows. Microsoft has also agreed to design future versions of 
Windows to make it easier to install non-Microsoft software. This 
settlement will benefit the entire technology industry.
    During these difficult times, one of our highest priorities 
should be to boost our lagging economy. Restricting Microsoft will 
not accomplish this end. Please support this settlement so we can 
focus on more important issues. Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Francis Clark



MTC-00029044

From: Joan Eslinger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed settlement 
to the ongoing antitrust case between Microsoft and the U.S. 
Government. I obtained a B.S. in engineering from the University of 
Illinois in 1981. I've worked in the computer industry in Illinois 
and California for most of the time since then, with experience in 
operating systems, networking, security, applications, and standards 
compliance. I'm currently employed by Silicon Graphics (SGI) as a 
software engineer. I have also followed this antitrust case with 
great interest, reading the various documents made available to the 
public including the findings of fact and findings of law, because I 
have observed Microsoft's effect on the computing landscape for the 
past several years.
    I believe the proposed settlement will do nothing to deter 
Microsoft from any of its business practices which have already been 
proven to be predatory and to maintain and extend their monopoly. I 
can't imagine what possessed the USDOJ to agree to such a thing.
    The settlement does not address the most important point for the 
survival of other operating systems: interoperability. One key way 
Microsoft maintains and extends their monopoly is related to the 
file formats produced by Microsoft's Word and Excel applications. 
Almost every business in this country has found itself forced to use 
these applications (and others) to interact with other businesses. 
(I understand there are also government agencies contributing to the 
monopoly by requiring documents be submitted in these formats, and 
by disseminating information in these formats). And Microsoft makes 
deliberate changes to the applications and their file formats 
periodically, often disabling backward compatibility 
``accidentally'', to drive widespread upgrades. The best 
way to defeat this monopoly-maintenance mechanism would be to 
require Microsoft to publish these file formats so that other 
companies can write applications that will correctly read and write 
Microsoft Office documents. This does not mean Microsoft has to 
expose any of their source code. I know many people have called out 
to require Microsoft to make their source code available. I don't 
believe that is a useful remedy, and Microsoft has made clear they 
would never agree to such a thing. Publishing file formats is 
nothing like opening up source code. The TCP/IP protocols that the 
Internet is built on are described in plain English (with some 
specialized jargon), and many companies have used that English 
description to write networking code that works with everyone else's 
networking code. I believe the government could make a big 
difference in the world of document exchange merely by specifying 
that all correspondence be done in

[[Page 28501]]

openly-documented file formats. I believe this is one of the most 
important requirements the goverment could insist on in this case.
    The second most important problem is the secret and not-so-
secret deals Microsoft makes with hardware manufacturers to ensure 
Microsoft products (and only Microsoft products) are available to 
consumers by default. One way this comes about is that almost every 
contract Microsoft signs with another company contains a non-
disclosure clause. Microsoft uses Operating System pricing as the 
key in such contracts. If a company agrees to lock-out Microsoft 
competitors, Microsoft will lower their cost to purchase Windows. 
The uniform licensing terms of the proposed final judgement are a 
good start, but do not go far enough. There is nothing to prohibit 
Microsoft from making other deals that lead to a vendor receiving 
cash or goods or services from Microsoft if it just happens that the 
vendor does not offer any products from Microsoft's competitors. I'm 
not an accountant, but I expect it would require analysis of not 
just Microsoft's accounting records, but also those of the vendor's 
to detect such a scheme. Frankly, I don't think anything will ensure 
uniform pricing other than having the hardware vendors publish the 
cost of Microsoft's software as a line item visible to the consumer, 
in addition to giving the consumer the right to request a machine 
with no Microsoft software for the cost of the machine without that 
line item. Vendors will be less likely to lie about the cost of 
Microsoft software if they know a consumer can knock that full 
amount off the price when buying a machine with no OS.
    There are many, many loopholes in the agreement that I'm sure 
other people are writing in about, so I won't go into them in 
detail. The DOJ should know, however, that Microsoft is famous in 
the industry for writing contracts they can wriggle out of.
    One such loophole I haven't seen discussed concerns the three-
person Technical Committee. The committee members are required to be 
``experts in software design and programming.'' They are 
not required to know anything about accounting, business practices, 
contract law, or criminal investigation. They are permitted to hire 
staff members, but they also must be software experts. Several 
sections of the final judgement have nothing to do with software but 
with contracts and business relationships. Why are there no lawyers 
or accountants on this committee?
    Here's just a short list of some of the problems I've seen in 
the settlement:
    Microsoft is allowed to retaliate against vendors who ship a 
Personal Computer with no Microsoft software.
    Microsoft is allowed to make extra payments to vendors who 
comply with any unofficial rules they may have (III.A.), as long as 
it takes the form of a payment for positive action (promotion) 
rather than a negative action (withholding marketing funds). Intel 
and Microsoft have both used the marketing funds budget over the 
years to promote their monopolies. The current form of the Technical 
Committee is unlikely to be able to police this effectively.
    Why are vendors not allowed to advertise non-Microsoft 
Middleware more prominently than Microsoft Middleware (III.C.3.)? 
Vendors should be free to configure the systems they sell any way 
they wish. III.F.2. is worthless. Most companies that work with 
Microsoft are at a severe competitve disadvantage if they don't sign 
up for co-marketing agreements. The co-marketing agreements will 
effectively cancel this provision.
    Microsoft should not be permitted to poison existing and future 
standards. Microsoft is currently investing a lot of money in 
network protocol design. The obvious inference is that they plan to 
replace the open protocols of the Internet with their own 
proprietary ones.
    III.H. gives Microsoft permission to pre-empt non-Microsoft 
middleware if there is a feature missing. Microsoft can always 
arrange for Microsoft Middleware to have new features not available 
in competitor's products (and some features, like ActiveX, 
deliberately avoided by other products due to security problems). By 
the time an ISV could add support for the new feature, the damage 
would already be done. This clause will not change anything. 
Microsoft can always refuse to document an API by claiming it is 
security-related. By the time a Technical Committee member is able 
to view the related code, Microsoft can change the API so that it 
actually does implement some security function. The free operating 
systems Linux and BSD, currently Microsoft's competition, will not 
be able to license such code.
    The definitions of ``Microsoft Middleware'' and 
``Microsoft Middleware Product'' are such that Microsoft 
can easily work around any restrictions on them. In three years the 
problems will not center around ``Internet Explorer, 
Microsoft's Java Virtual Machine, Windows Media Player, Windows 
Messenger, Outlook Express and their successors'' or 
``Internet browsers, email client software, networked audio/
video client software, instant messaging software''; they will 
center around elements of .Net and new applications.
    With the new subscription software model, the definitions of OS 
revisions, upgrades, alpha and beta periods, and distribution will 
change radically, to the extent that parts of the proposed final 
judgement will not make any sense (and will no longer apply to 
anything).
    I hope you will take these comments under consideration when 
evaluating the appropriateness of the proposed settlement. I do not 
believe this settlement to be in the best interests of consumers or 
the future of computing.
    Joan Eslinger
    [email protected]



MTC-00029045

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:12pm
Subject: ``Microsoft Settlement.'' Fax: 
1-;202-;307-;1454 or 1-;202-;616-;9937
    The Seniors strongly believes that 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 their computer experience easier and more 
enjoyable. The settlement itself is tough on Microsoft, but is a 
fair outcome for all parties--;particularly senior consumers. 
Most important, this settlement will have a very positive impact on 
the American economy and will help pull us from the recession we 
have experienced over the past year.
    Sincerely Forrest C. Milligan



MTC-00029046

From: Bob (038) Adie Santore
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
TO : Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division, US Department of Justice
FROM : Robert Santore, Concerned Citizen
    Please disregard my previous letter, as that was a draft and not 
ready to be sent. I accidentally pressed the wrong button. So here 
are my thoughts: I believe the Justice Department and America needs 
closure on this (Microsoft) matter once and for all. How long has it 
been, how much money will it take...and how long will it continue 
on?
    The Federal Government must state it's case, derive it's 
penalties, seek resolution, and end it's relentless efforts to drag 
this matter any further, perhaps into the next administration. The 
Government needs to set a time limit. The longer the Justice 
Department takes to administer it's justice, the public will be 
thoroughly disgusted, and America once again will receive her 
enormous share of worldwide ridicule.
    This action is a waste of precious taxpayer resources, and most 
of us believe the action by the previous administration was 
politically motivated, fueled by Microsoft's competitors. No one has 
yet to prove that the American citizen, or the software industry has 
been hurt by the allegations of anti-competitive behavior. Is it 
worth the cost? And, while the Government continues it's aggressive 
pursuits, we have real serious problems to contend with, such as the 
Enron case, where thousands of employees and investors were sucker-
punched....collapse of a major corporation, lost employment and 
retirements. That's the real crime. And that's precisely where the 
Justice Department should be spending it's efforts. The contentious 
and incessant attacks against Microsoft must stop.
    Remember that old saying, ``it's the economy......''? 
I believe the actions of President Clinton and his administration, 
the Democratic Congress, the raising of interest rates by the 
Federal Reserve, the Justice Department versus Microsoft, the 
collapse of Enron (and other big business), the lack of security in 
the airlines and the attacks of 9/11 are the result of America being 
diverted from really serious issues. ``It's the 
Government.....!!!''
    It's the Government which is creating an unhealthy economic 
environment. It's the Government that knew our airlines and airports 
were vulnerable. And it's the Government which will ultimately drag 
the country into a deepening recession. Let's end this obsession 
with Microsoft, let the Government fuel the market and get this 
economy going again. Let's rock......

[[Page 28502]]

    Sincerely;
    Robert J. Santore



MTC-00029047

From: Richard H Carlson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that you should accept the settlement and cease the 
litigation.
    Sincerely,
    Richard Carlson



MTC-00029049

From: LESTER (038) PAM TAYLOR
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ir-;A YJ OR AWGUS R-;AWCH .Lester andTam Tayfor HC 89,BOX 
225
Nt. Pteasant, AR 72561
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20530
RE: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    We understand that the public comment period on the proposed 
settlement agreement between the Department of Justice and Microsoft 
closes today, January 28, 2002. We are writing to cast our votes in 
favor of settlement. Given the record of accomplishment so far in 
this case, it makes no sense to continue litigation when you have 
the chance to conclude the case in a manner beneficial to the 
economy. The primary complaint against Microsoft was that consumers 
who chose to use Windows operating systems for their computers were 
precluded from utilizing non- Microsoft software programs for such 
services as Internet browsers and messaging services within Windows. 
Microsoft has agreed to end this practice, and open its Windows 
systems to such competition. With the major complaint answered, 
there is no need to further litigate. Please end this case, and put 
Microsoft back to work. The country needs to heal. Thank you for 
your kind consideration in this matter.
    Sincerely,
    114-&A 0. Lester A. Taylor Cpa''@
    a. Pamela 3. Taylor



MTC-00029050

From: Joe De Fazio
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 8:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joe De Fazio
6805 Douglas Blvd. #43
Granite Bay, Ca 95746
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 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,
    Joe De Fazio



MTC-00029051

From: Ernesto Starri
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 8:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ernesto Starri
P.O. Box 1934
Corona, CA 92878
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 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,
    Ernesto Starri



MTC-00029052

From: Brandon Wright
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
5012 West Little Water
Peak Drive
Riverton, Utah 84065
January 17,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I think the anti-trust lawsuit filed against Microsoft 
Corporation should finally be closed and satisfied. The suit charged 
Microsoft with unfair business practices that limit competition, but 
really the issues were new ground. The technology industry is 
continually producing new products and procedures that challenge the 
rest of the world to keep up, including legislation.
    Moving forward, Microsoft has agreed to change their policies 
and procedures to conform to the agreed terms of the settlement of 
the lawsuit. They have actually agreed to more conditions than were 
at issue in the lawsuit, and they did so to get the lawsuit behind 
them and to resume business.
    I think Microsoft has shown their intent to conform to the 
ruling and the terms of the settlement. No further court action 
should be taken against Microsoft Corporation.
    Sincerely,
    Brandon Wright



MTC-00029053

From: Tweetsy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft and his Colleagues,
    How do you do? My name is Carina Flores*, and I would like to 
present MY Views on the Microsoft Settlement:
    1. Microsoft has SIGNIFICANTLY contributed to the Gross National 
Product of this Country and to the direct and indirect Livelihood of 
MILLIONS of people even beyond these patriotic shores;
    2. Microsoft has GENEROUSLY contributed to MANY Charitable and 
Educational Agencies dedicated to uplifting the lives of MILLIONS of 
people in this country AND in this planet;
    3. Microsoft has dramatically ALTERED the landscape of Democracy 
by making it possible for information technology to be more 
accessible to a greater number of people and helping us make MORE 
informed Decisions in the process;
    4. Microsoft KNOWS how to keep its Employees happy, productive 
and instrumental in FUELLING the Economy of this Society, and 
Microsoft, don't you ever doubt, is in it FOR THE LONG HAUL;
    5. Mr Bill Gates of Microsoft IS one of the most ADMIRED people 
in this Country and in the World, and he and his Colleagues HAVE set 
NUMEROUS, fine examples of Ingenuity, Wealth-building AND Wealth-
Creation for the Youths of Today, and the MANY more Generations to 
come;
    6. This beloved country of ours is admittedly FOUNDED on 
upholding the Law and discouraging unethical AND illegal behaviour, 
but NOT --;- repeat --;- NOT on

[[Page 28503]]

punishing Success, which is what Microsoft's Detractors WOULD like 
to happen because they are counting on you NOT to make that 
Distinction.
    7. This Country and the World IS, by far, BETTER OFF, because 
Microsoft exists today. Thank you, and may right be done.
    Sincerely
    Carina F Flores
    Box 19780
    Stanford, California
    94309
    * I'm a FORMER Microsoft Contractor who left Microsoft with a 
great deal of respect AND Admiration.
    It is not enough to conquer, one must know how to 
seduce.--;- Voltaire



MTC-00029054

From: John Dunn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:17pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    MS has done complied with everything that the DoJ has asked. AOL 
is just looking for a free ride.
    Finalize the decree and let's MS spend their dollars on 
productive efforts.
    John Dunn



MTC-00029055

From: 
[email protected]@i
netgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:15pm
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,
    Stephen Bogdan
    307 Ashmead Rd.
    Cheltenham, PA 19012-;1506



MTC-00029056

From: Pease
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:19pm
Subject: MicroSoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I fully support the proposed settlement of the Microsoft 
antitrust action. Microsoft, for all its faults, continues to be the 
one standardizing force in a market that easily fragments into many 
special segments serving only cognoscenti of that segment. Microsoft 
is aggressive and competitive and deserves the restraints imposed by 
the settlement, e.g., I should be able to by a computer from anyone 
without an operating system if I want it.
    Please bring an end to the hectoring of one of two or three 
great U.S. companies providing inexpensive computing to virtually 
anyone with a job.
    Sincerely,
    George and Valerie Pease



MTC-00029057

From: William Tedrow
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 8:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
William Tedrow
hcr 32 box 399
moyie springs, idaho, ID 83845
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 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,
    WilliamA. Tedrow



MTC-00029058

From: Robert Stafford
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 8:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Stafford
5062-;B Foothills Dr.
Lake Oswego, Or 97034
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 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 Stafford



MTC-00029059

From: Albert Briggs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
PAlbert Briggs
7571 Links Court
Sarasota, FL 34243
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    It is unfortunate that some states wish to push for further 
litigation against Microsoft. In my estimation, the states'' 
representatives on this case are spending more time listening to 
money-hungry Microsoft opponents than looking closely at the factors 
in the case. I have never supported Microsoft to the exclusion of 
competition. They have in no way done anything that has negatively 
affected me professionally or personally. I have worked in the 
computer industry for over thirty years, and Microsoft is a true 
leader. I currently am a satisfied user of AOL/Time Warner's 
?Roadrunner? cable service to the exclusion of MSN. I did choose 
Microsoft's ?Internet Explorer? product after a disappointing 
experience with ?Netscape?. Microsoft's support and development 
programs get my vote, However, one does not need to be an expert in 
the computer field to see all that Microsoft has done for the 
computer industry. Another factor that proves Microsoft's high 
caliber has been their willingness to cooperate throughout this 
lawsuit and to comply with the terms of the proposed settlement. 
They have agreed to give their competitors access to Microsoft codes 
and protocols in order to facilitate competitiveness. In addition, 
Microsoft has agreed to have their compliance to terms of the 
settlement monitored by a technical committee. Any person who has a 
dispute with Microsoft may make their complaints known to this 
committee.
    I am truly hopeful that your office will remain determined to 
resolve this matter. I thank you for all the work you have done

[[Page 28504]]

thus far and for keeping the public's interest at heart.
    Sincerely,
    Albert Briggs



MTC-00029060

From: David Beck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:19pm
Subject: pro comp and the trial
    I think when all is said and done the boys of procomp and the 
companies whose product they represent will go down in history as 
the equal of enron and Anderson. I hope you suffer as big a loss as 
the rest of us trying to just get by.



MTC-00029061

From: Sheevaun O'Connor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:20pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear DOJ Group
    Thank you for this opportunity to share some thoughts about this 
settlement. It is not often that we are asked or have opportunities 
such as this.
    As far as the details of the settlement I cannot be specific but 
in summary I would say that this particular solution is allowing one 
conglomerate to sidestep the law. Not only sidestep the law but to 
impinge on fair trade for other systems. If a company has a superior 
product that product should not be sabbotoged just because the 
larger more well funded company wants that market share.
    Let's be realistic for a moment in a fair trade arrangement, 
meaning all companies have equal opprotunities, there would be a 
better competitive market. Just look at what the IBM suit brought 
about, PC's on every desk and much more.
    I've began my teen life as a programmer at the age of 14 and 
though that is not my vocation today I have always felt that there 
were better systems out there. Allowing one company to monopolize 
one or more markets is certainly not giving the public the tech 
growth opportunities that are truly out there.
    Think for a moment how the FDA handles products that are 
ingested by humans. Why is it so difficult to see that we are 
stunting the growth of other products by allowing MicroSoft such an 
easy out.
    Sincerely,
    Sheevaun Moran



MTC-00029062

From: Seann Maxwell
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 8:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Seann Maxwell
4324 Ridgemoor Drive N.
Palm Harbor, FL 34685-;3171
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 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,
    Seann Maxwell



MTC-00029063

From: Robert Smith
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 8:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Smith
1715 Chip n Dale
Arlington, TX 76012
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 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 W Smith



MTC-00029064

From: Lois Amacher
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 8:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lois Amacher
4800 Marconi Avenue #128
Carmichael, CA 95608
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 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,
    Lois Amacher



MTC-00029065

From: Nick Parlante
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:22pm
Subject: need for competition
    I'm writing to express my concern that Microsoft's current 
position is a frightful drag on innovation and investment in 
computer science, and that the proposed remedy falls far short of 
fixing the situation. The obvious concern is that Microsoft can use 
the market power of its monopoly operating system to achieve 
dominance in other domains--;such as with the Netscape browser, 
or the Real and Quicktime media formats. Obviously, we want 
microsoft to compete on price and features in those new domains, 
rather than leveraging its existing dominance.
    Rather than repeat those arguments, I would like to come at the 
point from a new direction.
    What is the most exciting and valuable technology to come about 
in computer science in the last 10 years? The Internet! At the time 
the Internet burst on the scene, roughly 90% of the world's 
computers were using Microsoft operating systems to run Microsoft 
applications to produce and exchange microsoft formatted files. If 
Microsoft controlled the operating systems and the applications and 
the document formats, why did the Internet not develop as a 
Microsoft feature? Why did the measly other 10% come up with the 
best technology

[[Page 28505]]

of the last decade? There are two answers to this question:
    1. Microsoft position has created, inevitably, an atmosphere of 
complacency. The result has been a series of overpriced, insecure, 
and just generally crummy products with high prices. It always stuns 
me how breathless the marketing prose is for these things when they 
are patently so lame. Or rather, how low our standards have become 
for the price/performance of software. We have become accustomed to 
lack of competition. Look at PowerPoint today vs. 5 years ago. 
Compare that to a domain where there is competition, such as hard 
drives, or databases.
    The rest of computer science proceeds through ruthless 
competition, and the contrast to the Microsoft products without 
competition is stunning. With competition, PowerPoint would be far 
cheaper now than it was 5 or 10 years ago. The atmosphere of 
complacency inhibits something as useful as the Internet from being 
developed inside of Microsoft--;it threatens the status quo.
    2. Microsoft develops products to strengthen its 
monopoly--;each product tries to tie in to the other Microsoft 
products. Using such ties, both technical and marketing, the 
Microsoft products lock into each other to protect the franchise 
from a product that might compete in a single domain. From a 
technical point of view, the practice enables some neat features, 
but also a series of disastrous security holes. From a marketing 
point of view, it has been entirely effective. For example, 
PowerPoint could never stand on its own in the market with its 
price/performance ($314 street price, Jan 2002), however bundled 
with Word and Excel it does ok.
    Besides all that, the habit of linking products together exactly 
prevented Microsoft from developing the Internet. The Internet is 
all about any-any connections. This works by having a freely 
available standard, such as TCP/IP or HTTP, and having all systems 
implement the standard in a non-discriminatory way. So A PC can make 
a web (HTTP) connection to a Unix machine, or a Macintosh, or 
whatever. In the early 90's, Microsoft created technology for PC-to-
PC networking, but it goes against the Microsoft linking strategy to 
create good PC-Unix, PC-Mac etc. versions.
    The Internet is the philosophical opposite of Microsoft's 
``linkage'' strategy. Because Internet connections are 
based on standards, they lead to --;competition--;. If you 
don't like the brand X HTTP server, you can swap in the brand Y HTTP 
server and it still works since the two are following the HTTP 
standard. Looking back at the development of the Internet, one of 
the key technical themes is: standards promote competition which 
leads to continuous improvement in price/performance. The emergence 
of the Internet is exactly a peek at what the world would look like 
without Microsoft domination. The Microsoft domain is so leaden, so 
stationary, that the tiny, non-profit driven standards projects, 
such as TCP/IP or HTTP or HTML, created whole new domains while 
Microsoft stood still. This reflects both the great dynamism that 
competition creates as well as the sodden rule of a monopolist. 
(That Microsoft would like to bring these new domains under its 
control is, of course, the topic of the trial.) The point I would 
like to emphasize, is how vibrant, how amazingly innovative and 
valuable computer science can be when prompted with a competition. 
We are so accustomed to the Microsoft hegemony, that we think of it 
as high tech and innovative, whereas the Internet showed us that the 
Microsoft domain is stationary compared to a real competitive 
domain. Computer science has so much potential to create value when 
pressed with competition. I fear that Microsoft's monopoly will 
weight down that potential to look more like the pathetic history of 
PowerPoint.
    I would recommend that Microsoft be divided into three parts: 
Operating systems, applications, and internet applications. Each 
part should have to compete in its domain on its merits, without 
technical, financial, or marketing ties to influence the competition 
in the other two domains. Disclaimer: I own Microsoft stock. I think 
if forced to compete, they would do fine on their merits.
    Regards,
    Nick Parlante
    Lecturer in Computer Science
    Stanford University
    (650) 725-;4727
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00029066

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have reviewed the provisions of the agreement between the 
Justice Department and Microsoft Corp. I believe the provisions are 
reasonably fair and that Microsoft is giving adequate accommodations 
to their competitors. It is my opinion this case has been carried on 
long enough and should be settled, in order that all parties 
involved can move on with their respective programs. It is also my 
opinion that a final settlement would be and is in the absolute best 
interest of the entire country.
    Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the settlement of 
this case.
    Sincerely,
    Louis L. Studer
    CC:[email protected]@
inetgw



MTC-00029067

From: Stephen McDaniel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement is a joke.
    Microsoft is bad for business (except for MS business) and , 
most importantly, they are bad for a world gone wired. They write 
bloated buggy software and force you into their upgrade scheme in 
much the same fashion that they screwed computer makers with their 
fascistic licensing practices. Everything they do runs counter to 
the ethics of good coders.
    Split em up. And let real programmers have a shot at the title.
    Thank you.
    Stephen G. McDaniel
    [email protected]



MTC-00029068

From: Bethany Hanson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has had a stranglehold on our operating system market 
for too long. The settlement proposed goes way too easy on them.
    Please reconsider.
    bjh



MTC-00029069

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
United States Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    As a consumer advocate and consumer, myself, of computer 
products, I am compelled to file my comments concerning the proposed 
settlement agreement in the Microsoft case. This case, which as 
taken years of government resources and much of the public's 
attention, is at its most important juncture. It is in the public 
interest for the Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, to 
uphold the spirit of competition by requiring changes in Microsoft's 
business conduct. These requirements should be swift and specific, 
ensuring free competition in the computer sector, not creating 
further outlets for Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. I believe 
that sustaining a company like Microsoft in the current economic 
climate is useful for empowering the American economy and foreign 
economies to which the company is attached. However, there must be a 
reasonable approach to the problem of its monopolistic behavior.
    The proposed settlement appears to ignore the barriers to entry 
issue that was at the heart of the entire investigation and 
resulting lawsuit. To eliminate or minimize the barriers to market 
which Microsoft is guilty of would provide more freedom of choice 
for consumers and would open competition for other manufacturers to 
provide ways to run existing Windows applications on different 
operating systems. Creating a way to allow other manufacturers to 
develop new products will have a profound and lasting effect on the 
US economy, as they compete to produce better products with the 
consumer in mind, and then in turn, distribute them through the 
chain of distribution of their choosing. This will further affect 
the economy as new businesses spring up to handle the increase and 
variety of new products.
    Furthermore, requiring that Microsoft share its technology with 
industry participants will give the power of choice to consumers and 
remove Microsoft from single-handedly dictating use of information 
technologies. The handling of Microsoft can have implications in 
many areas of our way of life, such as allowing for the expansion of 
markets and promoting consumer choice, two things that consumers 
like me look to the Department of Justice to ensure.

[[Page 28506]]

    Sincerely,
    Jaylene Sarracino
    Attorney (DC & MD)
    11160 Veirs Mill Rd. L-;15, Suite 201
    Wheaton, MD 20902



MTC-00029070

From: Billie Staib
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:26pm
Subject: microsoft
86 Waterdale Road
Williamsport, Pennsylvania 17702
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Let me start off by saying that the government had no business 
bringing a case against Microsoft in the first place. That having 
been said, I appreciate everything that has been done to end this 
case quickly and get on with business as usual. The settlement is 
fair; Microsoft will take steps to increase competition in the 
marketplace by allowing its competitors to place their own programs 
on the Windows operating system.
    Now, more than ever, we need companies like Microsoft back at 
full strength, helping the economy. Stop punishing them and let them 
help get us out of this recession. I'm sure that there are more 
important things for the Justice Department to be worrying about 
right now as well.
    Thank you for taking the time to listen to my opinion on this 
and I hope it will have some effect.
    Sincerely,
    Billie Staib
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum
    CC:mailto:[email protected]@
inetgw



MTC-00029071

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:24pm
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,
    Karen Duffy
    194 Carnavon Pky
    Nashville, TN 37205



MTC-00029072

From: Joyce Kelly
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 8:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joyce Kelly
216 Tom Bell Rd. 153
Murphys, CA 95247
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 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,
    Joyce M. Kelly



MTC-00029073

From: Scott Brennan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:28pm
Subject: MicroSoft Settlement
Scott Brennan
2473 Tonquin Street
East Meadow, NY 11554-;5331
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Microsoft and the Department of Justice have come to an 
agreement ending the three-year-long antitrust case against 
Microsoft. This came after round-the-clock negotiations ordered by a 
U.S. District Judge. I feel this agreement should be honored. The 
two parties agreed to this settlement, the federal judge accepted 
this decision, so why should there be any further discussion? I do 
not think it is in the best interests of our country to endlessly 
review these decisions. Why do we have courts, after all?
    Further, Microsoft has been more than fair in its settlement. 
Microsoft has agreed to design future versions of Windows with a 
mechanism to make it easier for computer makers to promote non-
Microsoft software; Microsoft has agreed to release important 
internal information about Windows so that developers can more 
easily write competing products. Enough is enough.
    I ask that you approve this settlement and let our country get 
back to business.
    Sincerely,
    Scott Brennan



MTC-00029074

From: David Goldschmidt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    I strongly object to the proposed settlement with Microsoft. 
It's less than a rap on the knuckles to the company which has been 
completely stifling competition in user software for over a decade.
    Microsoft's anti-competitive approach to its business is most 
clearly shown by it's abhorence of internet standards. The company 
line is that they are ``improving the standard and making the 
products better for consumers.'' This is total nonsense. They 
know that open standards promote competition and make for a more 
level playing field. This is anathema, of course. What they want, 
and have so far been able to achieve for the most part, is to make 
all common data formats Microsoft proprietary. The way to do this is 
to make their internal data formats as complicated and difficult to 
understand as possible. This makes it more difficult for potential 
competitors to make their products compatible with Microsoft 
products.
    One technique in particular which they use to obfuscate very 
effectively is executable content. Like all their other so-called 
``innovations'', this is yet another attempt to prevent 
other software developers from marketing compatible products. It has 
also turned out to be a security nightmare for the internet. This 
detestable policy of purposefully over-complicating data formats by 
including executable code is by far the single most significant 
security problem on the internet. It has enabled worms and viruses 
to proliferate ad nauseum. It has cost business and industry 
billions of dollars.
    The latest strategy is to try to dominate the web by inducing 
developers to use Microsoft web development tools which, of course, 
generate web pages which only work with Internet Explorer. This 
simultaneously puts the other browsers out of business and forces 
the remaining developers to pay big bucks for the Microsoft 
development tools.
    There is zero benefit to consumers in all of this, Microsoft's 
pious claims to the contrary notwithstanding. The company must be 
broken up and its monopoly power eliminated once and for all.
    Very truly yours,
    David M. Goldschmidt



MTC-00029075

From: Larry Seel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Larry M. Seel
1444 North High Street

[[Page 28507]]

Apartment B9
Columbus, Ohio 43201
January 5, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As someone who works in and is extremely familiar with the 
computer industry, I am writing you to express my opinion on the 
Microsoft settlement issue. I believe that this settlement is long 
overdue, and I am relieved to see this dispute resolved.
    With the economy faltering and the IT industry in retreat on 
many fields, I feel it is best to allow Microsoft to devote its 
resources to designing innovative software. This settlement allows 
all of us in the industry to get on with the business designing and 
providing IT services. Even with the heavy sanctions this settlement 
places on Microsoft, sharing of technical information, government 
review committee, etc., Microsoft will still be able to be the 
leading force in the technology sector.
    Thank you for settling with Microsoft. I believe we should 
devote our time and energy to more pressing issues at hand.
    Sincerely,
    Larry Seel



MTC-00029077

From: Scott Brennan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:30pm
Subject: MicroSoft Settlement
    fyi: i just e-mailed my letter...hope it helps, & wasn't to 
late.
    sb
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:
    It is my hope that the Department of Justice will reconsider the 
decision to settle the Microsoft antitrust lawsuit and follow the 
lead of the nine state attorneys general who have rejected the 
decision to let Microsoft off with a slap on the wrist. I am proud 
that my state's Attorney General, Tom Miller, rejected this 
Microsoft agreement. I believe that he and the other eight state 
attorneys general recognize the many problems with this agreement.
    The decision to prematurely end litigation against Microsoft is 
a real error in judgment. A real opportunity exists for the 
Department of Justice to take a stand and protect our free market 
society and its consumers. Further litigation could effect real 
change. Please continue to pursue Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Scott Brennan
    #813940



MTC-00029078

From: Ted Fronefield
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I oppose the currently proposed Microsoft settlement as being 
one that does not further the ordinary citizen's future interest in 
having the best computer software available at the best price. If 
the Microsoft settlement allows the installation of used and 
refurbished computers with Microsoft operating systems into schools 
it will provide Microsoft with an otherwise unavailable market 
destination for disposing of old PC equipment and a monopoly for 
Microsoft to provide technical support and operating system 
software.
    Further it will enhance Microsoft's ability to require the use 
of computers using the Microsoft operating system by children at an 
early age based on a forced environment rather than based on a 
selection of systems having the best overall value.
    Ted



MTC-00029079

From: Bruce Bernott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:33pm
Subject: help consumers, stop persecuting a productive US company
    Dear Sirs:
    I am writing in support of the Microsoft positions in the 
Justice Department lawsuits.
    I have been a professional programmer for 37 years. Microsoft 
has done the most of any software provider to lower the costs of 
useful software for consumers. There is just no honest refutation of 
this fact.
    I have personally seen $12,000 price tags on developer's 
toolsets for Sun Microsystems Solaris operating systems, at the same 
time as Microsoft charged less than $2,000 for a toolset that 
included not only a comparable developer's tool, but also a complete 
database system.
    I urge the Justice Department to settle or drop its suits 
against Microsoft as soon as possible, for the benefit of us 
consumers. Antitrust laws written to stop abuse of fixed land-based 
distribution of commodities like power, telephone service, and fuel 
just do not make sense for software which is easily distributed.
    Regards,
    Bruce A. Bernott
    CC:Faye Bourret



MTC-00029080

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    As a small business owner, I strive everyday to accomplish what 
Microsoft has in the past fifteen years. I have never agreed with 
the government's pursuit of Microsoft for its successes. I am 
satisfied that this settlement will bring the lawsuit to an end.
    This settlement, and its several provisions satisfy Microsoft's, 
the American IT industry's, the government's and most importantly, 
the American public's interest in this matter. The agreement creates 
a non-hostile competitive environment for other companies besides 
Microsoft and fosters innovation by requiring Microsoft to make 
available its intellectual property and source code on reasonable, 
non-discriminatory terms.
    This agreement is the product of three years and three months of 
a judicial debacle and this should be the end of it. I strongly urge 
your office to accept this settlement and take no further federal 
action.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Danny Fischer
    608 Barrington Place
    Matthews, NC 28105



MTC-00029081

From: Don G. Primeau
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 8:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Don G. Primeau
8200 Greeley Blvd
Springfield, VA 22152-;3043
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 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,
    Don G. Primeau



MTC-00029082

From: gfda ghgf
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:35pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    I am a retired accountant that has consulted with over a hundred 
companies in my carrier. I have set up computer systems for a 
majority of these companies working with all the different platforms 
of their day. To make this brief I believe that Microsoft has its 
market share not by a monopoly but because they are the best. ANY 
restrictions

[[Page 28508]]

on them would only be used by the competition to make our computer 
world move to mediocrity. I would encourage you for the sake of this 
Great Nation to end this nonsense as soon as possible.
    Keith Vrede



MTC-00029083

From: Dr. Andrew E. Mossberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Reply requested by 9/24/01
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Ms. Hesse,
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. I agree with the problems identified in Dan 
Kegel's analysis (on the Web at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
remedy2.html), namely:
    1. The PFJ doesn't take into account Windows-compatible 
competing operating systems
    2. The PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly Narrow Definitions and 
Provisions
    3. The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License Terms 
currently used by Microsoft
    4. The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Intentional Incompatibilities 
Historically Used by Microsoft
    5. The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive Practices Towards 
OEMs system.
    6. The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an effective 
enforcement mechanism.
    I also agree with the conclusion reached by that document, 
namely that the Proposed Final Judgment, as written, allows and 
encourages significant anticompetitive practices to continue, would 
delay the emergence of competing Windows-compatible operating 
systems, and is therefore not in the public interest. It should not 
be adopted without substantial revision to address these problems.
    Sincerely,
    Dr. Andrew E. Mossberg,
    President, Inicom, Inc.
    CTO, Asoki Corporation
    CIO, CruisExcursions.Com, Inc
    Director, Institute of Maya Studies, Inc.
    Dr. Andrew Mossberg
    Inicom, Inc.--;www.inicom.com
    cell: (305) 724-;5675



MTC-00029084

From: Helen Lydic
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 8:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Helen Lydic
264 Haskell Rd.
Coudersport, PA 16915-;7945
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 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,
    Helen F. Lydic



MTC-00029085

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle Microsoft suit.
    Robert A Childs at [email protected]
    CC:[email protected]@
inetgw



MTC-00029087

From: Maynard Sipe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft settlement proposed by the Dept. of Justice is 
totally unacceptable and should be rejected by the court. It does 
not go far enough in any of its provisions. It allows Microsoft too 
much room for self-determination over whether it is meeting terms of 
the agreement, it fails to sever the link between pre-market loading 
of Microsoft's OS and it's Internet Explorer web-browser, and it 
does not take any affirmative-action type steps to reestablish some 
competitiveness in the marketplace which is essential.
    It is clear that innovative companies with products far superior 
to Microsoft's have been driven out of business or had their share 
of the market reduced significantly by Microsoft's uncompetitive 
practices. The obvious example is Netscape. Because Microsoft could 
spend almost limitless funds developing Internet Explorer and then 
induce PC manufacturers to carry Internet Explorer, they were able 
to practically destroy Netscapes market share. This would not have 
been possible without the use of unfair and anti-competitive 
business practices.
    Another example is Be. The BeOS was superior in almost every way 
to Windows, but Microsoft used their market strength to effectively 
prohibit PC manufacturers from even offering BeOS as an option.
    Worse yet, Microsoft is continually attempting to further its 
monopolistic position by asserting dominance over the internet by 
using standards in its software not compatible with open standards 
(HTML, SHTML, Java, etc. Web sites must support the Microsoft 
applications. Since other companies do not presently have the means 
to compete with Microsoft, allowing Microsoft to continue to do this 
threatens to give undue control over the internet to Microsoft. This 
is extremely serious for the nation's welfare and that of almost all 
private businesses and industries.
    The fact that Microsoft acts in violation of anti-monopoly laws 
has been established. The proposed settlement etween the Dept. of 
Justice and Microsoft is patently against the public interest and 
should not be accepted by the court. No settlement will be effective 
unless it completely severs any link whatsoever between packaging 
and distribution of Windows OS and Internet Browser; requires dual-
boot OS on ALL pcs marketed with Microsoft OS; and applies 
affirmative obligations on Microsoft to remedy its past actions. 
(Such as requiring Microsoft to make the necessary proprietary codes 
fully available to competitors such as Netscape).
    The best remedy would be a break-up of Microsoft into three 
separate companies. Failing that, any remedy should have proactive 
measures to restore competitive balance in software markets, 
particularly for web-browsers (such as requiring dual-boot on all 
pcs marketing with Microsoft OS); bar Microsoft from packaging its 
web-browser with its OS; and provide for continued oversight by the 
Dept. of Justice or better yet, the court.
    Thank you for considering my comments,
    - Maynard Sipe



MTC-00029088

From: arosenbach@inter-
linc.net@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 24,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Dept of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;000l
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am writing to you in support of Microsoft and the settlement 
recently reached in the anti-trust case.
    With microsoft agreeing to allow competition from both computer 
makers and software developers, there is no further reason to pursue 
legal action against them.
    If the lawsuit is allowed to continue, despite the concessions 
granted by Micro-soft, then it shall prove that the lawsuit had more 
to do with jealousy than justice.
    I support Microsoft and do not wish to see the company divided 
into separate companies (Baby Softs?)
    Sincerely,
    Carole Rosenbach



MTC-00029089

From: Lee Berger

[[Page 28509]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wish to express my support for Microsoft and my disgust and 
disappointment in a government that seeks to punish a successful 
business for its very success.
    Microsoft undertook to make the benefits of the computer and 
internet available to the average citizen. This was good for the 
buyer, who 10 years before could not have afforded to own such a 
system, and it was good for Microsoft, who generated a larger 
customer base. Historically, this is the way the world has benefited 
from new inventions and novel applications (the Model T Ford, for 
example). Someone finds a way to make the new invention inexpensive 
enough for the average man, who snaps it up eagerly.
    The excitement when Windows 95 was launched demonstrated this 
eagerness to enhances one's life. Windows has streamlined and 
enriched my own life immeasurably. I freely made this choice and 
will continue to control what I put on my computer. Microsoft (or 
any other company) has the right to offer its wares and the rest of 
us, to purchase them or not.
    There has been no damage to consumers. We have received a boon! 
We each freely chose to buy these products for our own reasons. In a 
free society, the sight of one person's success should inspire a 
redoubling of effort on the part of every other worker, not envy and 
a wish to destroy the innovator. Our Constitution guarantees 
protection of our property rights. Where is the protection for 
Microsoft? Can any of us feel confidence in our government in the 
face of such a blatant misuse of power? I do not wish to live in a 
country that penalizes our best minds. It is time for us to wake up 
and recognize the uniqueness of our Constitution and the superb 
moral mechanism of the free market system.
    Leora K. Berger
    2014 Browning Avenue South
    Salem, Oregon 97302



MTC-00029090

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I only wanted to add one wee voice to the heavyweight voices 
already writing you. Please work to have the Windows Operating 
System separated from the applications side. I don't need Office 
ported to Linux or any such silliness but having the operating 
system so strongly biased toward in-house applications seems to be 
the root of the many problems. It is unfathomable to me that I had 
to give up using Netscape (which I was more familiar with and 
preferred) because the owner of the OS wants me to use Internet 
Explorer. I am only an average PC user but I can remove most 
programs from my computer without mishap except Outlook Express or 
Internet Explorer. Removing either of these causes the machine to 
develop serious operating problems. This is wrong. Where will it 
end? By having Windows will I eventually be required to discard 
other programs when Microsoft decides to enter a new market?
    I personally really like the idea of separating into two 
companies--;OS and applications. It seems there is enough demand 
to keep two companies healthy and thriving. I believe that we would 
even see real advances in OS rather than the superficial changes 
brought about by many ``new'' versions of Windows. If the 
OS company were truly separated we wouldn't see programs like 
Outlook having freedom to couple so closely; hence, some of the 
horrendous security problems would be overcome. Applications like 
IE, Outlook and Office should need to work with the operating system 
through the same interface as non-Microsoft programs.
    I know you must get tons of email so let me boil it down to 
``No favoritism for in-house products''.
    Thank you for your time.
    Earlene Bryan



MTC-00029091

From: Jerry D. Snead
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs:
    Please allow the proposed settlement reached by the Justice 
Department and Microsoft to be the final act of this farcical suit. 
The Attorneys General of these states that wish to continue the 
harassment of Microsoft for their small groups of constituents 
should not be afforded any more time or monies. Stop these 
proceedings NOW!
    Microsoft has brought a tolerable environment to personal 
computing, one that did not exist until there was a market force as 
large as Microsoft to enforce de facto standards. Without these 
standards, personal computing would be only a small fraction of the 
pervasiveness it enjoys today. Get off Microsoft's back, and let the 
consumers reap the benefits of stable, standardized computing 
environments. Perhaps then the technical sectors of our economy will 
return to their previous stature.
    Thank you for considering this opinion.
    Jerry Snead



MTC-00029092

From: Billy Parker
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 8:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Billy Parker
39542 Chappellet Cir.
Murrieta, CA 92563-;4853
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 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,
    Billy M. Parker



MTC-00029093

From: schinnell1 password
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:43pm
Subject: USAGSchinnell--;Debbie--;1048--;0108
Debbie Schinnell
117 Northridge Drive
Centralia, WA 98531
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you today to voice my opinion in regards to the 
Microsoft settlement that was reached in November. This issue has 
worn out its welcome, and it is time to resolve this issue 
permanently. The settlement is a decent and realistic alternative to 
another three years of litigation, and it provides the benefits that 
Microsoft's competitors feel they need to compete. That is why I 
support this settlement, and I sincerely hope there will be no 
further action against Microsoft at the federal level.
    Among other things, the settlement gives software companies like 
Sun the protocols and interfaces to redesign their products to run 
more efficiently on the Windows operating system. Microsoft is 
literally giving away the sorts of codes that made them known all 
over the world. Moreover, hardware companies will be able to 
reconfigure Windows after they receive their licensing agreements, 
and Microsoft cannot prevent them from changing the 
``desktop'' software or cannot take any retaliatory 
action, so consumers will ultimately dictate what sort of software 
they will want on their computers before the computer is sent. This 
settlement does something for everybody interested.
    Microsoft is a company that has done so much to impact our 
society and the technology industry. Microsoft has made it easier 
for the average consumer to afford and use software, which in turn 
has made it easier to conduct business. This company should not be 
stifled or restricted for following the American Dream. Please 
support this settlement and work in the best interest of the public.

[[Page 28510]]

    Sincerely,
    Debbie Schinnell



MTC-00029094

From: Fr. Ray Ryland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I urge the Department of Justice to proceed with its projected 
settlement with Microsoft in the anti-trust action brought agaisnt 
Microsoft. It's high time to let Microsoft get back to its business 
of serving the world with its outstanding products.
    Ray Ryland
    900 Granard Parkway
    Steubenville, OH 43952
    (740) 282-;3009



MTC-00029095

From: Marcia Jones
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 8:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Marcia Jones
125 Hildreth Rd
Hot Springs, AR 71913
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 taxpayer's 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,
    Marcia Jones



MTC-00029096

From: L. A.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Trials
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
1/28/02
Suite 1200, Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Renata Hesse,
    Fearing my letter might not reach you in time I decided it might 
be wise to send an email.
    I appreciate this opportunity to speak out, regarding Microsoft. 
For me, the domination of Microsoft in the software industry has 
been a disaster. I consider myself an above average computer user, 
and yet I could not sufficiently combat the tide of instability 
caused by the poorly written software developed by Microsoft. I have 
lost countless hours to troubleshooting crashes caused by the 
companys products. Worst of this breed of overwrought catastrophes 
is Internet Explorer. Not a day would go by without this application 
bringing my entire system to a screeching halt. I often wonder what 
the face of the industry would be had the company not been able to 
use their monopoly power on the OEMs to muscle Netscape and other 
competitors out of the picture. A bully is still a bully, at any 
age. I shudder to think of the consequences of raising a new 
generations of kids to rely on inferior tools in their own schools, 
thanks to the marketshare being handed to Microsoft by their own 
proposed Seattlement. There is just too much complacency, too much 
power, and too little brains going into the products at Microsoft 
for the company to justify the monopoly its established by its 
frequent use of political leverage and scare tactics. But beyond my 
own animosity for the company, there is a genuine and immediate need 
for changes in the balance of power in the technology industry. In 
my opinion, the answerthe only answeris intervention on the part of 
a higher authority to remove the advantage that has trapped the 
computing populous in a seemingly endless cycle of unintended brand 
loyalty.
    Thank you for taking the time to read this.
    Sincerely.
Laura A. Caigoy
6439 Valmont Street
Tujunga, CA 91042
email: [email protected]



MTC-00029097

From: Bill Seward
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:44pm
Subject: proposed Microsoft settlement
    Dear Sir or Madame:
    I would like to request that you revisit your proposed 
settlement with Micrsoft on the question of penalties for their 
behavior. Recent actions by Microsoft (their new licensing 
``agreement'' and their Product Activation) seem to be 
more of the ``same old, same old''.
    While I do not think a breakup of the corporation is called for, 
I do beleive that it will require far more stringent measures to 
reform Microsoft. Their well-document corportate culture is one of 
``win at all costs'', and part of the cost has been a 
marketplace with true alternatives to their products. While there 
are Unix, the Apple Macintosh and the Open Source movement groups, 
the fact is that Microsoft operating systems are on over 50% of the 
servers and over 90% of the desktops in the US. Their browser and 
various office automation products control similarly extreme shares. 
While I am a free market supporter to the point of Libertarianism, 
this is not the sign of a healthy market. It is the sign of a market 
that has been skewed by the power and money that Microsoft controls. 
From my point of view as a network administrator and IT manager, 
Microsoft is the embodiment of the old ``800 pound 
gorilla'' joke.
    Please come up with a settlement with some teeth, or we will be 
doomed to travel this same road again in the future.
    Bill Seward



MTC-00029098

From: Joyce Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:45pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    With a potential settlement in the Microsoft case, I wanted to 
voice my position of support on ending further litigation by 
completing the deal. The antitrust lawsuit was misguided from the 
start,caused by rivals who only have themselves to blame for their 
lack of headway in the industry. The growing pattern of government 
intervention in the business community was evident with the tobacco 
lawsuit, where states joined a giant money-grab because they dont 
like the results of people's individual choices. This time, people 
have made the choice of Microsoft as their preferred software maker 
and delivered them with a dominant market share, so the government 
sees an opportunity to make money by punishing a company in the name 
of competition. The deal offers computer makers oopen access to 
selecting the software providers of their choice and will be 
constantly monitored by a group of experts, so Microsoft's rivals 
should declare this a victory and start creating products that 
consumers want.
    I ask that you go ahead with this proposal and let Microsoft 
continue to be a strong advocate for innovation in the PC industry, 
as our economy and financial markets coujld definitely use the 
boost. It is time to leave government on the sideline and let the 
litigation be ended. Thank you for hearing my feedback.
    Sincerely.
    Joyce Smith



MTC-00029099

From: 
[email protected]@inetg
w
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:45pm
Subject: ZMM: Fwd: Attorney General John Ashcroft Letter



MTC-00029100

From: Raymond Best
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 8:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Raymond Best
2364 W. Charteroak Dr.
Prescott, AZ 86305

January 28, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice
Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:

[[Page 28511]]

    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,
    Raymond Best



MTC-00029101

From: Kim (038) Jay
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kim Ogden
12884 Hamilton Place Drive
Fort Mill, South Carolina 29708
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you in support of Microsoft's antitrust settlement 
with the federal government. They have spared us the taxpayer of a 
lengthy and costly legal battle.
    This settlement is very reasonable. Microsoft agreed that if any 
third party's exercise of any options provided for by the settlement 
would infringe any Microsoft intellectual property right, Microsoft 
will provide the third party with a license to the necessary 
intellectual property on reasonable terms. Also, the settlement 
establishes an oversight committee to monitor its compliance with 
the settlement and assist with dispute resolution. Additionally, 
Microsoft has agreed not to retaliate against software and hardware 
developers who develop or promote software that competes with 
Windows or that runs on software that competes with Windows.
    Microsoft has and will continue to be a good corporate citizen. 
I think this settlement shows that the consumer interest has been 
addressed. I urge you to approve this settlement, so Microsoft can 
get back to work.
    Sincerely,
    Kim E. Ogden
    cc: Senator Strom Thurmond 
CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00029102

From: Austin Gonyou
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:47pm
Subject: Please be more stringent on Microsoft.
    Please be more stringent on Microsoft. They need to inter-
operate with the rest of the world, not vice versa. Any judgement 
which is passed that, in any way, allows Microsoft to expand it's 
grasp of the desktop, server, embedded, or other markets, I would 
consider a mis-carriage of the law.
    The main reason I'd feel that way is because Microsoft has been 
anti-competitive for far too long. They have stifled the creativity 
of individuals, development communities, and other corporations. 
That in itself, since they have been found guilty of in fact being 
anti-competitive --;and--; being a monopoly, warrants harsh 
punishment that should reflect in the following ways:
    1. Monetarily--;Micorosft Corp.'s bottom line.
    2. Opened Sources without fear of:
    a. forced compensation to MS under penalty of law.
    b. lack of future products not being inter-operable with older 
products, from MS, after sources have been opened.
    3. Shame--;MS has no shame, and they should. Imagine the 
following:
    a. If your car broke down as often as windows, you'd be upset.
    b. If an airplane ran on ``Windows(tm)'' alone.
    c. If you woke up and everything you owned was in fact owned, 
operated, and distributed by a single company.
    4. Not only Opened Sources, but licensing which accepts 
liability, and possibly damages, for the company's lack of integrity 
due to it's poorly designed software and practices.
    Thank you for your time.
    Austin Gonyou
    Systems Architect, CCNA
    Coremetrics, Inc.
    Phone: 512-;698-;7250
    email: [email protected]



MTC-00029103

From: marcia cooperman
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 8:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
marcia cooperman
1563 se bidwell
portland, or 97202
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 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,
    Marcia A. Cooperman



MTC-00029104

From: Carol Olyer
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 8:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Carol Olyer
2814 Brookwood Rd.
Orange Park, Fl 32073
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 taxpayer's 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,
    Carol W Olyer



MTC-00029105

From: Ed Smith
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 8:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ed Smith
130 Somerset Drive
Brooklyn, MI 49230

[[Page 28512]]

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 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,
    Ed Smith



MTC-00029106

From: Floura, Ranvir
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to voice my opinion on the settlement between 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice. I don't see how this case 
has benefited anyone. Microsoft has run a successful business and 
contributed a great deal to our society. Why is the government 
wasting our money punishing a company for fulfilling the American 
dream?
    I am a Network Engineer and use a variety of software products 
in my job. I obviously use Microsoft, but I also use their 
competitors'' products and have never had any problems in doing 
so. It is not Microsoft's fault that their competitors couldn't 
create products that were equal or better. There is a reason that 
consumers have repeatedly chosen Microsoft's products over other 
companies''.
    Nonetheless, the proposed settlement is a very reasonable 
agreement that could end this pointless lawsuit. Although Microsoft 
is giving up way more than should be expected, the settlement would 
certainly bring on stronger competition in the computer industry. 
Microsoft is giving away their source codes and server protocols 
that are integral to the technology they've taken years to create. 
This will make it easier for competition server systems to 
interoperate with the Windows operating systems and Microsoft server 
systems.
    Please accept this settlement for the benefit of our struggling 
economy. The computer industry contributes so much to the economy. 
Upholding this settlement will strengthen the entire computer 
industry and will be a benefit to consumers.
    Sincerely,
    Ranvir Floura



MTC-00029107

From: fremontsmith
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 8:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the settlement proposed by the DOJ has more the feel 
of a Microsoft promotional document than a serious attempt to 
prevent Microsoft from further abusing its monopoly. I feel it is 
completely inadequate to protect other markets from the same abuse 
that Microsoft placed upon the web browsers. I feel it does little 
or nothing to keep Microsoft from continuing to enjoy the benefits 
of past abuses. I cannot believe that the very limited enforcement 
possibilities included in this agreement will have any hope of 
materially changing the behavior of Microsoft. Microsoft has ignored 
or broken many agreements in the past. I would fully expect 
Microsoft to interpret this agreement as allowing them to do 
practically anything they wanted to do. I am particularly dismayed 
by the inclusion of clauses that would allow Microsoft to use 
security as a pretext to withhold API information, or to prevent 
OEM's from unbundling Microsoft middleware. I certainly do not feel 
accepting this agreement would be in the best interest of the 
general public.
    Sincerely,
    Fremont Smith
    Software Engineer



MTC-00029108

From: Christina Weiss
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 8:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Christina Weiss
1648 Brentwood CT
Plainfield, IN 46168
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 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,
    Christina Weiss



MTC-00029109

From: Dora Ratliff
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 8:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dora Ratliff
663 N Cherry St
Germantown, OH 45327
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 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,
    Dora Ratliff



MTC-00029110

From: Cecil THREADGILL
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 8:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Cecil THREADGILL
P. O. BoX 1236, 308 E. Main
Pilot Point, TX 76258
January 28, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice
Antitrust Division

[[Page 28513]]

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,
    Cecil R. THREADGILL



MTC-00029111

From: Arnold Mead
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 8:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Arnold Mead
R. R. # 5 Box 5449--;C
Moscow, PA 18444
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 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,
    Arnold Mead



MTC-00029112

From: Joy Hiner
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 8:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joy Hiner
365 Roxbury Park
Goshen, IN 46526
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 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,
    Joy Hiner



MTC-00029113

From: Warren Smith
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 8:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Warren Smith
164 Harvard Rd
Watervliet, NY 12189
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 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,
    Warren L. Smith



MTC-00029114

From: John Spilker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Now that the economy is in a recession, with massive layoffs all 
over the US, and the NASDAQ is way down with no relief in sight, why 
pursue additional litigation with Microsoft? Let the settlement 
stand the way it is. It is more than fair for the competition.
    Microsoft went out of its way to reach an agreement, beyond what 
would be expected in any antitrust case. They agreed to everything 
from disclosing various internal interfaces to making it easier for 
computer companies, consumers and software developers to promote 
their software within Windows. I do not know a lot of software 
companies that would risk their proprietary information and their 
business, unless they really wanted to settle their antitrust court 
cases.
    Let's get our economy back in shape and quit running after 
Microsoft.
    Thanks for your attention to this matter.
    Sincerely,
    John Spilker



MTC-00029115

From: Jim/Marcia Bennett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed settlement 
between the U.S. Department of Justice and Microsoft. This 
arrangement would, I firmly believe, let Microsoft off much too 
easy. The seriousness of the violations of law, and the clear anti-
competitive effect of Microsoft's practices warrant a 
correspondingly severe set of penalties. If the Department of 
Justice lacks the will to perservere in reaching a truly just 
solution, then I look to the judge who has jurisdiction to make a 
properly effective ruling.

[[Page 28514]]

    I am writing as a concerned citizen and consumer, who looks 
forward to a future where competing technologies can have a chance 
to contend on a level playing field, which has not been the case in 
some of the markets dominated by or targeted by Microsoft.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Sincerely,
    James A. Bennett
    608 Barret Ave.
    Louisville, KY 40204
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00029116

From: Richard Brandon
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 8:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Richard Brandon
8393 W Cloverleaf
Hayden, ID 83835-;7200
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 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,
    Richard P. Brandon



MTC-00029117

From: Robert Hepburn II
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 8:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Hepburn II
305 Brookmeade Dr.
Gretna, La 70056
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 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 J. Hepburn II



MTC-00029118

From: DAVID FEARIS III
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 8:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
DAVID FEARIS III
401 CLARK LANE
WAXAHACHIE, TX 75165
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 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 P. FEARIS III, M.D.



MTC-00029119

From: Clif / Helen Shumate
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
2201 Ventnor Court
Arlington, TX 76011
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    It is with great pleasure that I write to you today regarding 
the Microsoft antitrust settlement. After three years of litigation, 
the case is finally closed against Microsoft. I believe that the 
case was unwarranted to begin with, yet I am pleased to see its end.
    Microsoft has made many concessions throughout the process. 
Microsoft has agreed to disclose the internal interface designs of 
Windows. It has also agreed to license Microsoft at a uniform price 
to computer manufacturers. These developments come at great cost to 
the Microsoft Corporation. Why is Microsoft willing to do so? 
Because it is in everyone's best interest that this matter be 
resolved.
    Sincerely,



MTC-00029120

From: Shannon Casteel
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 8:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Shannon Casteel
1902 E.Calle De Arcos
Tempe, Az 85284-;3474
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 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,
    Shannon Casteel



MTC-00029121

From: Jay

[[Page 28515]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time for this to end. I am not a politician, lawyer, 
lobbyist, employee of Microsoft, etc. I am just a computer user and 
systems engineer who has been involved with the computer industry 
for over 30 years and the micro-computer phase since its beginning. 
In all those years I have used many varieties of software products, 
both Microsoft and non-Microsoft. I was never met by armed Microsoft 
police preventing me from purchasing ANY and ALL pieces of software 
that I wanted at the time. Through the years, Microsoft has tamed 
the wild west that micro-computer systems had become and gave us a 
STANDARD that made a significant increase in the productivity of 
computer users world wide in general and the United States in 
particular. The nine states (plus AOL, ORACLE, SUN, and other 
envious competitors of Microsoft) that reject the 
DOJ--;Microsoft proposed settlement are creating an unnecessary 
burden on computer users and the economy. In my opinion, bring this 
to an end.
    Jay Zittle



MTC-00029122

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:01pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    The Microsoft settlement should remain in place. One of the most 
successful and prosperous businesses in the US should now be 
permitted to continue to prosper and innovate for the millions of 
consumers that owe their new knowledge and way of living to this 
great American corporation.The settlement is faair for all parties. 
It is not the consumer who is instigating further litigation. Look 
to the lawyers and conpeting corporaitions wanting to increase their 
own fortunes with less effort or innovation.
    Hope you take this small voice into consideration.



MTC-00029123

From: David Thum
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:02pm
Subject: Microsoft
    I am writing to express my utter feelings of shame at the way 
our government has gone after Microsoft. In times where it seems 
capitalism are under attack, it is imperative that it is understood 
that the very freedoms we enjoy in this country are what are 
responsible for the success companies like Microsoft, J&J, the 
big three, Pfizer, McDonald's, and even Flowers.com. I mention 
varying types of companies because all had the freedom to dream, to 
plan for the dream and to follow through.
    Microsoft was the victim of a government body gone mad over the 
American dream. Microsoft has no monopoly. If they had a monopoly, 
there would be no other way to run a computer than with Microsoft 
software. Any body else can develop their own software and market 
it. If they succeed, great as that is the American way. If they 
fail, it is either through poor design, marketing or product 
support, which, in a way, is also the American way. From a 
government that has gone mad over tobacco, it is clear that what 
speaks is the almighty dollar. If tobacco were so bad, make it 
illegal. The government will not do that because there is too much 
money in it. Microsoft is being penalized for being successful. 
Period.
    I am ashamed of the Reno DOJ and the Clinton administration for 
their shameful attacks of Microsoft and the way it continues. If 
somebody can build a better mousetrap than Microsoft let them. Where 
is the incentive to try to build a product people want only to have 
it all destroyed because of success? That is NOT the American way.
    I implore this entire mess to be dropped, not only for the 
continued success of Microsoft (in which I have NO financial 
interest, other than possibly a mutual fund which I've not checked), 
but also for the future Microsofts of America on the horizon.
    David Thum
    Avon Lake, OH



MTC-00029124

From: Carol Enright
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 8:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Carol Enright
837 12th ave
Port Arthur, Tx 77642
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 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,
    Carol Enright



MTC-00029125

From: Lance Robertson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 8:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lance Robertson
626 Springfield Circle
Roseville, CA 95678
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 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,
    Lance Robertson



MTC-00029126

From: Neal Dalton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not feel the settlement UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. 
MICROSOFT CORPORATION is a fair one. Over the year Microsoft has 
settle their disputes only to begin encroaching on the same area 
there agreed not to do. Even now Microsoft is eating up parts of the 
market, muscling out the competition by the market power they have 
as the provider of the OS. Other parts allow for access to Microsoft 
internal, but only for those who won't disclose them. The open 
source world (their primary competitor) would not benefit from this 
agreement. They would have no access to the internal, because the 
writing of their application to interoperate with Microsoft code 
would be a violation. So to would people who derive their income 
from supporting open source be crippled by this ruling.
    I would like to see Microsoft force to publish the APIs/
internal, so that they can not restrict their competition. I believe 
also that Microsoft's power as a OS and application leader (which 
they gained illegally) is too great a power for a company that has a 
history and continues to use strong arm tactics to crush their 
completion. Thus putting small businesses and other completion at 
risk.
    Neal

[[Page 28516]]



MTC-00029127

From: SaraConrad
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:04pm
Subject: Attn: Renata Hesse--;Trial Attorney
    ATTENTION--;THE FOLLOWING EMAIL IS FROM A SOCCER MOM WHO 
VOTES!!! micro$oft is a monopoly--;plain and simple. When you go 
to buy a computer you have no choice what operating system you get 
on your computer even though there are others (that work better) 
Linux, Solaris.
    You have no choice but to use microsoft products, internet 
exploder, they have pretty much wiped netscape out. And the scary, 
scary thing is the future. People who are as technically savvy as I 
are going to be registering with microsoft and their 
``passport'' program. This will track everything this 
unsuspecting people do on the web. And as far as microsoft saying 
they will donate stuff to schools, that is just another way for them 
to hook kids! My children use Apples, Unix and windows.. Unix is not 
platform specific. They use shared code. All games, all software 
should be able to be used on any computer regardless of the 
operating system. Micro$oft doesn't allow this. They say--;use 
us or don't use the others. This is wrong, wrong, wrong. You people 
have a very important decision in front of you. Do the research, 
don't rely on what microsoft tells you (even if they offer to pay 
you), find out what it is like with Solaris, Apple X, Red hat... 
don't let microsoft own everything. Let the people have a choice, 
even if they don't know the difference between a keyboard and a 
mouse...This country is about choice and right now, we don't have 
one as far as Operating Systems are concerned. Check into the claims 
that microsoft is tracking peoples'' usage. It is a well known 
fact in the IT business that they keep tabs on who is running their 
software, what they do online and where they go. Can you say, 
``invasion of privacy''???
    Don't take my word for it...and don't roll over for them. Thank 
you for doing the right thing.
    Sincerely,
    Sara D. Conrad
    2310 Glenwood Drive
    Boulder, CO 80304
    303-;444-;5357
    [email protected]
    Technical support engineer/girrrl geek



MTC-00029128

From: Don Wegeng
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Comment
    I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed 
settlement. I oppose the proposed settlement for two reasons:
    1) It provides no controls that will prevent Microsoft from 
engaging in illegal business practices in areas that are beyond the 
original charges. The computer software and Internet industries have 
changes quite a bit since the original antitrust case was filed, and 
Microsoft is clearly changing it's business plans to engage these 
new business opportunities. Will the proposed settlement provide any 
means to control Microsoft's business practices in these new areas? 
No. This is a major flaw in the proposed settlement.
    2) The proposed settlement assumes a business model where all of 
Microsoft's ``competition'' comes from for-profit 
businesses. However, in reality Microsoft is being threatened by the 
developers of the Linux operating system and other open source 
programs. The proposed settlement does not recognize these open 
source projects as competitors, and provides no requirement for 
Microsoft to disclose technical information to the developers of 
these open source projects. This, again, is a major flaw in the 
proposed settlement.
    I appreciate your consideration of these comments.
    Donald L. Wegeng
    Fairport, NY



MTC-00029129

From: 
[email protected]@inetg
w
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to go on record as stating that I believe Microsoft 
should be severely punished for its anti-competitive activities. A 
break up of the company into separate groups seemed most 
appropriate. The remedy worked out between MS & DOJ is totally 
inadequate, and in fact rewards MS by allowing them to write off 
hardware & software ``donated'' to schools as a 
remedy. Most elementary schools use Apples or Macintosh products. 
Rather than eliminating monopolistic behavior, it will literally put 
Apple out of business in favor of ``free'' PCs & 
Microsoft software.
    Further, schools that receive this ``gift'' will end 
up paying exorbitant amounts on subscription and maintenance fees 
after the ``remedy'' period is over. This is a travesty. 
The company has not changed. It's licensing costs are sky-rocketing, 
and customers have lost any ability to retrieve any damages due to 
defective software released by MS. I have used their products for 
almost 20 years now. In my opinion, they are out of control, and 
only the strongest of remedies, i.e. breakup of the firm, will stop 
their deceitful, predatory business practices.



MTC-00029130

From: Irene DeMpss
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 8:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Irene DeMpss
3320 Parksie Drive
San Bernardino, Ca 92404-;2408
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 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,
    Irene DeMpss



MTC-00029131

From: Americo A. Fusco
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 8:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Americo A. Fusco
39535 Hood Street
Sandy, OR 97055-;8403
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 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,
    Mr. & Mrs. Americo A. Fusco



MTC-00029132

From: Bruce Radebaugh
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 9:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Bruce Radebaugh

[[Page 28517]]

178 Fern Avenue
Collingswood, NJ 08108-;1938
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 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,
    Bruce R. Radebaugh



MTC-00029133

From: Roy Simmons
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 8:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Roy Simmons
17647 Inwood Lane
Neosho , Mo 64850
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 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,
    Roy Simmons



MTC-00029135

From: MSJC
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Renata B. Hesse,
    The Microsoft settlement should be completed. The government had 
no business in trying to break up Microsoft in the first place. Our 
entire capitalistic system is supposed to reward those that come up 
with a better mouse trap, and if they do, they should reap the 
rewards for their hard work and creative ideas.
    Regards,
    Mark E. Sitterle



MTC-00029136

From: bfriedman(a)excite. co m
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:07pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    I am a computer programmer and instructor at a community 
college.
    I resent the way that Microsoft has conducted itself with regard 
to the antitrust settlement. This company continues to disregard 
this country's laws, and should receive appropriate penalties.
    Their ``settlement proposal'' to donate software to 
schools is ludicrous. A piece of software with a retail price of 
$600 or more costs about $10 in packaging and materials. Microsoft 
proposes to spend a few million dollars (in real cost), donate this 
to schools, and then not support the hardware or software in the 
future. (Thus creating future licensing fees for itself in the 
future from the same schools.)
    The computer industry in general has shown much more good will 
to the US than many others. In the past, many computer scientists 
shared information, algorithms, etc., in the hope of advancing the 
art and technology. Microsoft has dominated an industry, and uses 
that position as a bully pulpit. They are destroying the previous 
trends of goodwill within the computing industry.
    I do not think that the people in Redmond should be let off with 
a slap on the wrist. As a corporation, Microsoft should be penalized 
for their monopolistic and illegal practices. And personally, I do 
not feel that their proposed gift to schools comes close to being an 
appropriate punishment for misconduct.
    Sincerely,
    Brent A. Friedman
    P O Box 13145
    Minneapolis, MN 55414
    of I
    01/30/2002 2:38 I
    7



MTC-00029137

From: Joseph Minnie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joseph S. Minnie
P.O. Box 642
Brooksville, Fl. 34605
January 19, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am greatly pleased to hear that a proposed settlement has been 
reached in the Microsoft antitrust case.
    This case has endured for over three years and should be brought 
to quick finalization. Microsoft has agreed to all terms of this 
proposed settlement and they have agreed to design future versions 
of Windows to allow competitors to easily attach their software 
products. Additionally, Microsoft will use a uniform pricing list 
when licensing Windows out to the twenty largest computer companies 
in the United States. Microsoft has also agreed to allow their 
progress toward compliance with all provisions to be monitored.
    As the terms of this agreement far exceed the issues originally 
raised in the suit over three years ago, I feel the case should be 
closed soon. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Joseph S. Minnie
    Joseph Minnie



MTC-00029138

From: Donald Cross
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 9:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Donald Cross
1239 San Pedro St.
Pittsburgh, PA 15212-;1564
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 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.

[[Page 28518]]

    Sincerely,
    Don Cross



MTC-00029139

From: Robert McArtor
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 9:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert McArtor
6430 Princeton Drive
Alexandria, VA 22307-;1347
January 28, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice
Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    Please allow the Microsoft settlement to stand so we may return 
to those days when we truly encouraged enterprise. We have 
squandered enough time and money discoraging free enterprise. Thank 
you
    Sincerely,
    Robert C. McArtor



MTC-00029140

From: Shams Kairys
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
US Dept of Justice
601 D St NW
Suite 1200
Washington, D. C. 20530-;0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    I am quite concerned that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has 
moved to settle with Microsoft (MS) in a manner that leaves 
consumers inadequately protected. I have found MS information 
technology (IT) stifles outside innovation and inter-operability, 
and hope you will provide a resolution of the MS case that maximizes 
competition and consumer in the best public interest.
    Minimally, I believe that Windows applications should run on 
other operating systems without modification; should be transparent 
to other software, so that it would be able to exchange files, data, 
and services with any MS product; should be able to run properly on 
computers with different microprocessors. Otherwise, consumers will 
continue to face unnecessary costs, limited choices, operational 
complexity, and reliability problems. Enforcement provisions in the 
proposed settlement are also inadequate and could very well allow MS 
to continue to stifle competition, creativity, and cost-
effectiveness. I urge the DOJ to announce public proceedings at the 
earliest opportunity as provided by the Tunney Act so that concerned 
consumers can speak to these issues.
    Sincerely,
    Shams Kairys
    Executive Director, Berkeley EcoHouse
    507 Cornell Ave.
    Albany, CA 94706
    510-;525-;1465



MTC-00029141

From: DRhoads
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Final Judgment for a variety of reasons. I shall briefly expound 
on but a few of them:
    1) The potential breakup of Microsoft should be maintained as a 
future remedy to insure Microsoft's compliance.
    2) Lack of punitive damages. Lacking provisions for an evolving 
industry, the Proposal seems focused on limited measures for a 
future that is only a simple extrapolation of yesterday's market. 
There are no penalties for Microsoft's outrageous conduct in the 
marketplace and before the Court. This sends the wrong message to 
anyone considering similar behaviour.
    3) The Termination of the Decree should NOT occur before ten 
(10) years from date of entry. Further, the length of any extension 
should be five (5) years, rather than two. Given that the present 
proceedings before the Court have consumed almost four (4) years 
with no action, it is not inconceivable that Microsoft could 
similarly delay and obstruct a three person panel for the proposed 
five (5) years.
    4) The construction of the Technical Committee (hereafter, TC) 
is faulty. Potentially, two of the three members of the TC will be 
answerable only to Microsoft and not to the Plaintiffs. This 
provides a majority which could veto any action or decision of the 
TC. The TC should consist of a minimum of five (5) persons, none of 
whom is appointed by Microsoft. The Defendant's interests could be 
represented by a non-voting, non-directing liaison to the TC. Also, 
the TC should be composed of persons with significant experience as 
auditors or inspectors general, who will be assisted by software 
experts.
    5) MOST IMPORTANT. According to Section IV.D.4.d of the 
Stipulation, no member of the TC may direct any findings to any 
other tribunal. This is UNACCEPTABLE! The Congress, other Courts and 
other States cannot be constrained by this Proposal in any of their 
future proceedings. In particular, this Section would disallow a 
member of the TC from informing authorities of a violation of law, 
including, but not limited to, the Sherman Act.
    The Proposed Final Judgment is seriously flawed and should be 
withdrawn from consideration. DOJ should rejoin with Utah, et al and 
use their proposals as a starting point for further negotiations.
    Sincerely,
    David Rhoads
    Fort Washington, Maryland



MTC-00029142

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:11pm
Subject: proposed monopoly settlement inadequate
    The current proposed Microsoft monopoly settle does a completely 
inadequate job of protecting consumers from future abuses by 
Microsoft. In particular,
    * Open source and free software concerns are ignored; which will 
allow MS to tighten its software monopoly by licensing it to public 
institutions.
    * Microsoft is not required to open up the details of its file 
formats, which harms interoperability with other software and thus 
prevents competitors from getting a toehold into markets that 
Microsoft already monopolizes.
    * Nothing prevents Microsoft from retaliating against OEMs that 
ship PCs with a competing OS (but not Windows). Please do not accept 
the existing settlement proposal.
    Thanks,
    Dan Mosedale



MTC-00029143

From: Stephen Patterson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 9:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Stephen Patterson
21959 C. R. 254
West Lafayette, Oh 43845
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 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,
    Stephen L. Patterson



MTC-00029144

From: cyberkristie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Ok, enough is enough, let's move on and accept the settlement 
with Microsoft. Then go after someone that is really in total 
control and unfairly taking advantage of the consumers. The Cable 
companies! It's just plain usury what the cable companies charge for 
what they provide and now they are doing the same with the cable 
internet access. If it weren't for Bill Gates and Microsoft we 
wouldn't be communicating by email because most of us couldn't 
afford to own a computer much less have the software to use it to 
it's full advantage. I've been

[[Page 28519]]

around since mainframes were the only thing and pc's weren't even in 
the realm of home use. Gates made it all affordable and even today 
his software is affordable and the best to be had. Dragging this 
thing on just hurts our economy more that it is already hurting. So 
put it to rest and look into why the money from the tobacco 
companies settlements isn't going to where it was meant to go. Get 
involved with issues that really effect the population.
    Kristie Ghioni
    3012 W Viewmont Way W
    Seattle, WA 98199
    206-;283-;3504



MTC-00029145

From: Ludwik Kozlowski SR., M.D.
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 9:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ludwik Kozlowski SR., M.D.
7608 Geronimo Circle
N. Little Rock, Arkansas 72116
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 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,
    Ludwik J. Kozlowski SR., M.D.



MTC-00029146

From: Billy Long
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 9:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Billy Long
1021 Wales Dr
La Plata, MD 20646
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 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,
    Billy J. Long



MTC-00029147

From: Charles and Barbara Martin
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 9:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Charles and Barbara Martin
503 51 Ave W
Bradenton, Fl 34207
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 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,
    Charles and Barbara Martin



MTC-00029148

From: Don Young
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 9:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Don Young
Rt. 1 Box 282 A-10
Scroggins, TX 75480
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 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,
    Don E. Young



MTC-00029149

From: John Russell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Russell
14763 West Trevino Drive
Goodyear, AZ 85338
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am writing to express my opposition to the antitrust lawsuit 
against Microsoft. Although I realize that the lawsuit is no longer 
an issue, what is before your department is the court mediated 
settlement that can end this debacle. Millions of taxpayer dollars 
have been used in what essentially is a needless persecution of a 
competitive company. What is before your department is an exhaustive 
settlement that has terms that extend well beyond the products and 
procedures that were originally at issue in the litigation. 
Microsoft has agreed to these terms in the interest of servicing the

[[Page 28520]]

public good and allowing for a fair, agreeable end to this process.
    This settlement, which has been reached by the Department of 
Justice, and approved by nine of the participating states, contains 
several provisions that extend significant restrictions and changes 
to how Microsoft does business. The settlement requires Microsoft to 
improve its relationship with computer and software manufacturers, 
by ensuring that Microsoft will not retaliate against manufacturers 
who ship non- Microsoft products and to create uniform pricing, 
allowing consumers to get the best price for the product. 
Additionally, the agreement allows any of Microsoft's competitors to 
file a claim against Microsoft in federal court if they believe that 
any part of the settlement has been violated, thereby forcing 
Microsoft to be in contempt of court.
    I strongly urge the Department of Justice to view this 
settlement as having served the public interest and to end this 
litigation. Nine states have approved this, and with the federal 
government's leadership, this process may finally be over. In the 
overall public interest, please cease any further action at the 
federal level on this matter.
    Sincerely,
    John Russell



MTC-00029150

From: Tyson Murray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:15pm
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 three-year lawsuit against Microsoft has been continuing for 
too long. I am amazed and appalled that the Government would attempt 
to bring litigation against its strongest asset in the tech sector. 
Microsoft creates jobs and wealth for our nation and does not 
deserve to be a victim of federal and state litigation.
    The terms of the settlement do little to protect consumer 
rights. In fact, they just give Microsoft's competitors an edge that 
they could not attain through innovation. Of particular interest to 
me are the terms by which Microsoft has agreed to disclose 
interfaces that are internal to Windows operating system products. 
This is a first in an antitrust settlement and a violation of 
Microsoft's intellectual property rights. Although flawed and 
unjustified, I urge your office to finalize the settlement because 
it is in the best interest of our economy and technology industry to 
end this dispute.
    Sincerely,
    Tyson Murray



MTC-00029151

From: Lovella S Richardson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:15pm
Subject: Re: Microsoft Settlement
    The judge's recent decision settling the Microsoft lawsuti seems 
fair to all to me. I appreciate having a good browser that I don't 
have to pay extra for. I feel that Microsoft has been a great 
benefactor to the U. S. economy and technology in general.
    Please let this settlement rest!
    Lovella Richardson,
    7706 Hodges Ferry Road, Knoxville, TN 37920



MTC-00029152

From: Lucas Rockwell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:17pm
Subject: Renata B. Hesse
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Renata B. Hesse,
    I am writing to register my opposition to the proposed Microsoft 
Settlement with the Department of Justice. My reasons for this are 
many, but I will list just one for the purposes of this letter. 
Microsoft is a convicted monopolist and allowing them to donate $1 
billion worth of software to schools is ``not'' a 
punishment. First, $1 billion to Micrsoft is not a lot of money. 
Recently, Microsoft had $30 billion in cash on hand. Second, 
Microsoft will experience years of benefits in sales from this deal 
as schools will seek to upgrade their aging ``free'' MS 
products. Also, when children learn software in school, parents have 
a compelling reason to purchase the same software at home. This 
settlement is a dream come true for Microsoft.
    Please, reject this settlement offer.
    I thank you very much in advance for your time.
    -lucas
    Lucas Rockwell
    UAS Systems Group
    510.642.6465
    [email protected]



MTC-00029153

From: The--;Neumanns
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whomever it may concern,
    I am aware of the settlement agreement for Microsoft and agree 
that the settlement is fair for all parties involved. To assume that 
all end users are so uneducated that can not make an educated 
decision for themselves is disturbing in the first place. Even a 
teenager knows that if he purchases a car and does not like the 
speaker system that comes preinstalled on the vehicle that they can 
purchase a new speaker system from a variety of vendors. But then 
perhaps the older you get the less aware you are... This settlement 
has more than enough covenants in it. Let's not go overboard on the 
restrictions.
    We live in an age where the computer industry is a thriving 
industry. More people than ever are using computers on a daily 
basis. People know that Netscape is out there. I have IE and 
Netscape on my PC and use them interchangeably. So, where have my 
choices been limited? Nowhere! This topic really makes me mad.
    Microsoft is a good company. I do not understand why people feel 
like they should go after a company that is turning around and 
contributing so much to our society. Mr. Gates distributes his 
wealth to a multitude of charities. People like that are very hard 
to find. Thank God for someone who is doing something to help people 
that truly need it in our troubled society.
    Sincerely,
    Erika Neumann
    CC:[email protected]@
inetgw



MTC-00029154

From: Gregg Bair
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:15pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Please leave the decesion whether Microsoft illegally snuffed 
the COMPETITION where it belongs. With the consumer/ we will decide 
who has the better product. I have been screwed by Microsoft's 
competition many times. I would not buy anything else. They have 
made the computer age affordable , away from the monopolies of Apple 
and IBM.
    In my opinion the legal system in this country should be 
investigated for the damage it has caused the consumer. The 
attorneys have raped this country and conned many people into 
believing they are victims. I ask you this question, how many times 
does your apple lock-up or what does it cost to fix the Apple? I 
applauded Microsoft and Bill Gates.
    Gregg Bair
    I HOPE MY VOTE COUNTS. BECAUSE IT WILL CERTAINLY COUNT IN THE 
NEXT POLITICAL ELECTION



MTC-00029156

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
164 Chesapeake Estate #64
Thomasville, PA 17364-;9661
January 10, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to you today to express my support of the recent 
settlement reached between the Department of Justice and Microsoft. 
After three years of litigation, the settlement marks an overdue end 
to the litigation battle.
    While the antitrust dispute was unnecessary in the first place, 
it is great to see this period come to an end. It is time for 
Microsoft, the IT industry, and the American economy to focus on 
productivity again.
    The settlement reached is more than equitable for Microsoft 
competitors. Microsoft has been more than generous throughout this 
process.
    Most important among these concessions is Microsoft allowing for 
the establishment of a regulatory committee. The technical oversight 
committee, which will be run by three people, assures that the 
stipulations mandated in the settlement are carried out. This shows 
Microsoft's willingness to appease its competitors in their 
commitment to put this issue at bay.

[[Page 28521]]

    Thus, it is important that this settlement stands. It is time 
for Microsoft and the larger IT industry to return to business as 
usual.
    Sincerely,
    Marie Hollabaugh
    CC:[email protected]@
inetgw



MTC-00029157

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
14202 W Via Manana
Sun City West, AZ 85375
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I think the antitrust case filed against Microsoft should 
finally be settled.
    I wonder why this case is being dragged on. Not only has 
Microsoft made bold concessions in order to get back to business, 
they have also promoted a more unified IT sector along the way. This 
settlement clearly promotes a technology industry that works 
together which will allow the US to maintain our position in the 
global market.
    Microsoft has made many concessions within the settlement that 
include changes in product design, licensing and marketing. The 
terms are meant to open competition to non-Microsoft software while 
still allowing Microsoft to prosper. The settlement promotes a 
teamwork environment in the technology industry and allows all to 
prosper in the process. Microsoft's efforts to end the litigation 
should be applauded.
    I strongly urge that you close this case. The longer we wait for 
a settlement, the longer we stray from focusing on innovation.
    Sincerely,
    Joan Fedor
    CC:[email protected]@
inetgw



MTC-00029158

From: Juan E. Ramirez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft is the 800 lb. Gorilla. They control OS software on 
95% of all PCs sold in this country. If this is not a 
``monopoly'' then the following companies were not:
    US Steel
    AT&T
    Thanks,
    Juan E. Ramirez
    [email protected]



MTC-00029159

From: Shirley R Mundinger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:18pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I hope you will close this long period of bickering among some 
of the Microsoft competitors and allegations against Microsoft. 
They, Microsoft, have offered much to the public to make computer 
use faster and more useable. Please let those fighting them, know 
that nothing more can be accomplished by dragging this on through 
the courts. Let them get on with their work and those that are 
complaining get busy developing their own products to better serve 
our nation.
    This long battle is consuming to much money and time and is 
unproductive and to our economy and our reputation as a nation. We 
need to develop more integrity in the business world.
    Yours truly,
    Shirley Mundinger



MTC-00029160

From: Bob Essman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:18pm
Subject: Microsoft
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Renata B. Hesse,
    I do not believe that the so called ``Antitrust'' laws 
are constitutional except, perhaps under the constitution of the now 
defunct U.S.S.R. or The Talibans of Afghanistan.
    Although I do not believe that Microsoft is clean of all 
possible charges, the process followed under this law is and should 
be unproductive and futile. I've niether seen nor heard of any real 
evidence. I've only heard accusations.
    If Microsoft has broken a law, it should be charged with fruad 
or theft or some real crime and not for persuing it1s inalienable 
right to persue commerce and make money. Doing business better than 
your competetors is a pure American ideal and should be encouraged 
instead of picked at like a bunch of spoiled children fighting over 
candy.
    Get on with the real work that the taxpayers pay you to do and 
get to Enron and/or Anderson where the evidence of wrongdoing is 
apparent.
    Sincerely,
    Bob Essman



MTC-00029161

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a consumer and individual investor who owns stock in many 
Tech. companies, including Microsoft, AOL Time Warner, Sun 
microsystems, etc., I have followed the developments of the 
government's case against Microsoft, and the complaints filed by 
individual States and Microsoft's competitors. I continue to believe 
the settlement already reached between Microsoft, the Justice Dept., 
and several States Should be the final judgement on the matter. No 
one, especially Microsoft's competitors, has yet demonstrated any 
injury to consumers by Microsoft's business practices. Although 
Microsoft successfully won away customers from AOL's Netscape by 
giving their Web Browser away for free, one can hardly say this 
``injured'' consumers. Getting a superior product for free 
is not what I would call being abused, nor is this an example of 
being deprived of choice. There was a choice, and consumers took the 
superior choice. Most savvy computer professionals agree that 
Internet Explorer is far better than the Netscape browser, and the 
Netscape browser cost money, it was not offered free. Also, 
Microsoft has always striven to establish standards in its software 
which would ensure its interoperability with many different 
applications and prevailing programs. Netscape's product could not 
boast the same attributes.
    Also, today, as in the past, there is ample competition for 
Microsoft, in operating systems such as Unix, Linux, Java, etc., and 
in internet applications and access providers such as AOL time 
Warner, Earthlink, and many others. Microsoft is not a monopoly in 
my view, it is instead a great American success story which has 
driven the local and national economy, provided thousands of high-
paying jobs, and has given much back to the community in raised 
living standards and charitible donations.
    Please bring this legal challenge to a close, as it is not 
helping to protect consumers, it is not helping our economy to 
rebound, and it is not justified by the sour grapes failures of 
Microsoft's inadequate competitorswho seek the government's aid in 
doing what they were unable to do in fair business competition.
    Sincerely,
    Baron Borrelli
    Bellevue, WA.



MTC-00029162

From: Zoe Alvarez
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 9:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Zoe Alvarez
1432 NW 26 Avenue
Miami, FL 33125-;2130
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 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.

[[Page 28522]]

    Sincerely,
    Zoe Alvarez



MTC-00029163

From: Brad Chapman
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 9:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Brad Chapman
4963 S 4055 W
SLC, UT 84118-;4044
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 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,
    Brad Chapman



MTC-00029164

From: Sallie Landry
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 9:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sallie Landry
7414 Tanager
Houston, TX 77074
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 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,
    Sallie Landry



MTC-00029165

From: Dona Sheets
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 9:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dona Sheets
3 Pichini Trace
Cherokee Village, AR 72529
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 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,
    Dona Sheets



MTC-00029166

From: Ellen Green
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 9:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ellen Green PO
Box 747 York, AL 36925
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 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.
    Get off of Microsoft's back. Settle this case!
    Sincerely,
    Ellen Green



MTC-00029167

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:24pm
Subject: (no subject)
164 ChesapeakeEstate #64
Thomasville,PA 17364-;9661
January 10, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to you today to express my support of the recent 
settlement reached between the Department of Justice and Microsoft. 
After three years of litigation, the settlement marks an overdue end 
to the litigation battle. While the antitrust dispute was 
unnecessary in the first place, it is great to see this period come 
to an end. It is time for Microsoft, the IT industry, and the 
American economy to focus on productivity again. The settlement 
reached is more than equitable for Microsoft competitors. Microsoft 
has been more than generous throughout this process. Most important 
among these concessions is Microsoft allowing for the establishment 
of a regulatory committee. The technical oversight committee, which 
will be run by three people, assures that the stipulations mandated 
in the settlement are carried out. This shows Microsoft's 
willingness to

[[Page 28523]]

appease its competitors in their commitment to put this issue at 
bay. Thus, it is important that this settlement stands. It is time 
for Microsoft and the larger IT industry to return to business as 
usual.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas A. Hollabaugh
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00029168

From: Zerbin Belles
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 9:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Zerbin Belles
106 Brown Lane
Lexington, SC 29073-;8302
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 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,
    Zerbin D. Belles



MTC-00029169

From: Austin Gonyou
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:24pm
Subject: One last thing.
http://linuxtoday.com/
news--;story.php3?ltsn=2002-;01-;29-;008-;20-
NW-MS --;
Austin Gonyou
Systems Architect, CCNA
Coremetrics, Inc.
Phone: 512-;698-;7250
    email: austin;@coremetrics.com
    ``It is the part of a good shepherd to shear his flock, not 
to skin it.''
    Latin Proverb



MTC-00029170

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 28, 2002
Attn: 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 would like to make known to the Attorney General my comments 
concerning the Microsoft settlement. I believe that the Court of 
Appeals ruling is reasonable and fair to all parties involved. I 
would like my voice to be heard and that is why I am writing this 
letter. I think that it would be very unfair to Microsoft if this 
settlement is rejected.
    Yours truly,
    Debra K. Trantham



MTC-00029171

From: Gary Oja
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    With billions of dollars at its disposal, a fine would be 
insignificant to Microsoft (although highly recommended). Any 
settlement which includes the distribution of Microsoft products 
would just worsen their monopoly. Please open up the arena to allow 
other vendors software programs (applications and operating system 
utlities, including Web browsers) to be substituted for Microsoft 
products and force Microsoft to unbundle their software to permit 
equal access. This would allow fair competition in the marketplace 
and benefit all consumers.
    Thank you.
    Gary Oja
    Principal Software Engineer
    Worcester MA
    [email protected]



MTC-00029172

From: Mark Donohoe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am writting this e-mail to let you know that as a consumer I 
feel frustrated, boxed in and limited by Microsofts monopoly. I have 
little or no choices when it comes to operating systems or 
applications to use on my home PC. This lack of choices limits my 
use of the PC and causes daily productivity loss.
    In the application area, there are few if any choices in word 
processors, speadsheets or other applications. This is simply not 
right in our competitive and free society we claim to have in the 
U.S.A. I was hoping the goverment would do something but feel less 
so in light of the recent actions by the goverment. The doj could 
help by imposing the following on Microsoft.
    1. Force them to publish and keep current the api's to their 
applications and file formats for those applications. With the 
published API's, others could write competing applications that 
could convert existing microsoft files into the format used by the 
competing application. Today this is not possible or is twarted by 
MS.
    2. Stop microsoft from further integrating features like 
browsers, media players and the like into the operating system. I 
use windows 98 now, and don't use IE, except when I have to. BUT, I 
can't really remove it from my system without permantly damaging the 
operating system.
    3. Stop Microsoft from pointing me to microsoft companies. When 
I got my pc, it insisted on bootup, that I either cancel the window 
or login to the microsoft network. This was not only annoying, but 
unless I sat and watched the machine boot and closed the window, the 
machine would not complete booting. It took my quite a while, and 
with some risk, to get this feature disabled.
    4. All of the above would not be so bad, if it all worked, but 
it doesn't! I must reboot my home machine very often, and must 
reboot my system at work at least once a week to keep things 
functioning. This is not to mention all the e-mail viruses and the 
like that plague MS software.
    Thank you for your time. Please help us consumers get this 
monopolist out of our hair and allow real innovation in the 
computing world.
    Mark Donohoe
    1012 Hewitt Dr.
    San Carlos, Ca. 94070
    ([email protected])
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00029173

From: Sandra Bottorff
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 9:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sandra Bottorff
12750 170th Avenue
LeRoy, MI 49655
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 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.

[[Page 28524]]

    Sincerely,
    Sandra J. Bottorff



MTC-00029174

From: Dave Garman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:26pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Judge Kollar-Kotally-
    I am a scientist at a small biotechnology company involved in 
developing therapeutics to help people. I am writing this letter in 
protest of the proposed Microsoft settlement. We use Microsoft 
products because we are forced to. For the research we do, computer 
applications are often only generated for the Windows platform 
because no other operating system has enough market share to justify 
development. In itself, this is not a significant problem. However, 
there are so many problems and issues with the Windows operating 
system and Microsoft Office that we have been forced to hire a full 
time Information Technology employee for a staff of only 15 people. 
This expense, in conjunction with software and hardware costs forced 
by Microsoft compatability issues, costs us more than $200,000 
dollars a year. This is a huge expense for a small business.
    The proposed settlement seems like a government endorsement of 
the Microsoft monoplay. This will only make our situation worse, 
with no competition to control inflation of prices. I hope you will 
reconsider and take a tougher stance against Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Dave Garman, Ph.D.
    Scientist
    5084 McCoy Ave
    San Jose, CA 95130
    (408) 364-;1984



MTC-00029175

From: Galvin, Rob
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 9:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
Ms. Hesse,
    Attached are the Comments to the Revised Proposed Final Judgment 
in United States v. Microsoft Corporation, No. 98-;1232, 
submitted on behalf of Sun Microsystems, Inc. Copies of the comments 
are submitted in both Word and .pdf formats. In addition, we have 
sent a copy via facsimile. Please call if you have any difficulties 
opening or processing these attachments.
    Robert Galvin
    Day Casebeer Madrid & Batchelder LLP
    20300 Stevens Creek Blvd., Suite 400
    Cupertino, CA 95014
    (408) 342-;4578
    Comments to the Revised Proposed Final Judgment in United States 
v. Microsoft Corporation, No. 98-;1232
    State of New York, et al. v. Microsoft Corporation, No. 
98-;1233
    Submitted By
    Sun Microsystems, Inc.
    Pursuant to the Tunney Act, 15 U.S.C. 16
    Lloyd R. Day, Jr.
    Robert M. Galvin
    Renee DuBord
    DAY CASEBEER MADRID & BATCHELDER LLP 20300
    Stevens Creek Blvd. Suite 400
    Cupertino, CA 95014
    (408) 255-;3255
    Jeffrey S. Kingston
    James L. Miller
    BROBECK, PHELGER & HARRISON LLP
    Spear Street Tower
    One Market Street
    San Francisco, CA 94105
    (415) 442-;0900
    Michael H. Morris
    Lee Patch
    SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC.
    901 San Antonio Road
    Palo Alto, CA 94303
    (650) 960-;1300
    Introduction
    Microsoft illegally maintained its monopoly over Intel-
compatible personal computer ``PC'') operating systems by 
acting to undermine the distribution and commercial appeal of 
alternative computing platforms like Netscape Corporation's 
Navigator browser and Sun Microsystems, Inc.'s JavaTM technology.\1\ 
By eliminating the ability of alternative platforms to compete with 
Windows, Microsoft has not only maintained its monopoly over PC 
operating systems, it also has dramatically increased the economic 
power that it derives from that monopoly, such that Microsoft now 
has the power to control competition in a number of adjacent and 
downstream markets as well. In the emerging world of networked 
devices and services, the commercial appeal and success of adjacent 
or downstream devices and services such as servers, personal digital 
assistants (``PDAs''), telephones, video game systems, 
television set-top boxes, and web-based services are in very large 
measure dependent on their ability to interoperate with PCs via the 
Internet or other networks. Microsoft's expanded monopoly power over 
PC operating systems and web browsers affords it the power to deny 
competing devices and services the same ability to interoperate 
fully and completely with PCs as Microsoft's networked devices and 
services enjoy. Microsoft is in fact exercising the power it derives 
from its PC monopoly in just this way to exclude competition in each 
of these adjacent markets. Unless and until that power is 
effectively checked and ultimately eliminated, Microsoft's past 
practices and insatiable ambition demonstrate that it will continue 
to destroy competition in each of these enormously important 
markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34, 46 (DC 
Cir. 2001) (``Microsoft III'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Unfortunately, the Revised Proposed Final Judgment 
(``RPFJ'') does little or nothing to eliminate the 
unlawful monopoly maintained by Microsoft over PC operating systems. 
Nor does it redress the harm that Microsoft's illegal acts have 
caused to competition in that market. And while the RPFJ apparently 
recognizes the threat to competition posed by Microsoft's 
exclusionary behavior in adjacent and downstream markets, the 
remedies it proposes to redress this threat are plagued with so many 
loopholes and ambiguities that there can be no assurance that 
Microsoft's anticompetitive conduct will stop. A. Competition in the 
market for PC operating systems must be restored
    The adjudicated facts establish that Microsoft illegally 
maintained a monopoly over the market for PC operating systems by 
undermining the ability of rival software platforms to compete in 
that or closely related markets. By offering consumers the ability 
to run compelling applications on operating systems other than 
Microsoft's Windows operating system, the Navigator browser and Java 
platform threatened to reduce or eliminate the applications barrier 
to competition that sustains Microsoft's monopoly.\2\ Microsoft 
fully recognized the threat these middleware platforms posed to its 
continued monopoly over PC operating systems and contrived to 
maintain that monopoly by restricting consumer access to these and 
any other non-Microsoft middleware platforms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\United States v. Microsoft Corp., 84 F. Supp. 2d 9, 
68 (D.DC 2000) (``Findings of Fact'') 
(explaining how middleware technologies such as the Navigator 
browser and the Java platform have the ability to weaken the 
applications barrier to entry).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commercial appeal of any computing platform is dependent in 
very large measure on the numbers of consumers who own or use the 
platform. The greater the number of users, the greater the demand 
for applications capable of running on that platform. The greater 
the demand for applications, the greater the number and variety of 
applications developed for the platform.
    And the greater the number and variety of applications developed 
for a platform, the greater the consumer demand for a given 
computing platform.\3\ Once started, this ``feedback'' 
effect can and will sustain the adoption and commercial success of 
platform software, such as Microsoft's Windows operating system, 
Netscape's Navigator browser or Sun's Java platform. The key to 
successful competition in platform software is thus distribution.\4\ 
Unless a platform enjoys widespread and sustained distribution, such 
that large numbers of computer users have the platform installed and 
available for use on their computer systems, the feedback cycle of 
application development and platform adoption will not take effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\See Findings of Fact, 84F. Supp. 2d. at 
39-;40.
    \4\See Microsoft III, 253 F.3d at 55-;60, 
60-;61, 70-;71; findings of fact, 84 F. Supp. 2d at 
36-;52, 143-;144.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the District Court found, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, 
Microsoft engaged in a series of illegal acts to choke off the 
distribution channels for the Navigator and Java platforms.\5\ By 
restricting and disrupting the distribution of the Navigator browser 
and the Java platform, Microsoft sought to limit the numbers of 
computer users with access to these alternative platforms and 
thereby also limit the demand for, and economic incentives 
supporting, application development on the Navigator and Java 
platforms. By decreasing the distribution of non- Microsoft 
platforms, such as the

[[Page 28525]]

Navigator browser and the Java platform, Microsoft knew that it 
could also decrease the number and variety of applications developed 
for such platforms, and thus their relative commercial appeal to 
consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\See Microsft III, 253 F.3d at 61, 72, 75-;76; 
Findings of Facts, 84F. supp. 2d at 357, 
395-;402.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    But for Microsoft's unlawful attack on the distribution of the 
Navigator and Java platforms, the installed base of these 
alternative platforms would have been very different today. So too 
would the economic incentives and choices of consumers and software 
developers.
    Consumers would have had the opportunity to choose among a 
variety of competing platforms--; not just Microsoft's Windows 
platform--;based upon performance, cost or personal preference.
    Developers too would have had the opportunity to choose among a 
variety of competing platforms on which to develop applications with 
the features, performance and cost that consumers demand.
    Indeed, because the Navigator and Java platforms were 
``cross-platform''--;that is, ran on top of a variety 
of operating systems, not just Microsoft's Windows operating 
system--; consumers would have had the ability to run 
applications written for the Navigator browser and Java platform on 
anyoperating system, not just Microsoft's Windows operating system. 
By dramatically lowering the cost to switch applications from one 
operating system to another, the Navigator and Java platforms 
directly attacked the applications barrier to competition that 
protects Microsoft's monopoly over PC operating systems, and greatly 
reduced the cost to consumers and developers alike of switching away 
from Microsoft's monopoly platform. In short, but for Microsoft's 
anticompetitive conduct, consumers today would have enjoyed far 
greater freedom, at far less cost, to choose among competing 
operating systems based on their comparative features, performance, 
and price, rather than simply the number of applications they 
support. B. Microsoft's unlawful power to exclude competition in 
adjacent and downstream markets must be stopped and eventually 
dissipated
    By disrupting and eliminating the distribution of competing 
platforms, Microsoft has not only maintained its monopoly over PC 
operating systems, it also has increased the economic power that it 
derives from that monopoly. By secretly manipulating the interfaces 
and protocols needed to interoperate with Windows, Microsoft can 
control which products and services in adjacent or downstream 
markets are capable of interoperating with PCs. Not only does this 
permit Microsoft to enhance the relative appeal and functionality of 
its products and services at the expense of its competitors, it 
denies consumers the benefits of competition. Instead of choosing a 
server, telephone, application, or web service based solely on its 
competitive merits, Microsoft is increasingly forcing consumers to 
purchase such products and services based upon their ability to 
interoperate with its unlawfully monopolized platforms.
    Microsoft is now abusing the power it has over PC operating 
systems and web browsers by seeking to extend its control to embrace 
any device, application, or web service that seeks to interoperate 
with Microsoft's monopolized PC operating systems or browsers. 
Microsoft's unbridled monopoly over a critical node on the digital 
network--;PCs--;provides it the power to allow only such 
servers, PDAs, telephones, television set-top boxes, videogame 
systems, or web services that implement Microsoft's proprietary 
interfaces and protocols to interoperate effectively with 
Microsoft's monopoly products. By illegally exploiting its PC 
operating system monopoly to acquire and utilize a chokehold over 
networked connections to PCs, Microsoft is dramatically expanding 
its power to deny consumers the benefits of choice and competition 
in adjacent and downstream markets as well.
    C. The RPFJ fails to remedy the monopoly illegally maintained by 
Microsoft
    In the face of this record, the law requires that any remedial 
decree ``terminate'' the monopoly, ``unfetter'' 
the market from anticompetitive conduct, ``deny to the 
defendant the fruits'' of its illegal acts, and 
``ensure'' no repetition of such abuse in the future.\6\ 
Measured against this standard, the proposed settlement between the 
United States and Microsoft reflected in the RPFJ falls far short.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\6 Microsoft III, 253 F.3d at 103.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rather than act directly to restore competition to the market 
for PC operating systems, and redress the harm to competition 
inflicted by Microsoft's past misconduct in that and adjacent 
markets, the RPFJ actually accedes to Microsoft's monopoly, and does 
little or nothing to eliminate or check the enormous power it 
provides. Incredibly, the RPFJ barely proscribes behavior already 
held to be unlawful without remedying the far-reaching and 
continuing anticompetitive effects that have been caused by that 
behavior.\7\ Even though Microsoft effectively destroyed competition 
for web browsers and blocked the distribution of upgraded, 
compatible versions of the Java platform for the PC, the RPFJ fails 
to remedy directly these anticompetitive acts or disgorge Microsoft 
of the power it now enjoys as a result of those acts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\See Schine Chain Theatres, Inc. v. United States, 334 
U.S. 110, 128 (1948) (concluding that injunctive relief which merely 
``forbid[s] a repetition of the illegal conduct'' is 
legally insufficient because defendants would ``retain the full 
dividends of their monopolistic practices and profit from the 
unlawful restraints of trade which they inflicted on 
competitors'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Instead, the RPFJ relies on Microsoft's partners--;PC 
manufacturers--;to indirectly undermine Microsoft's monopoly by 
distributing non-Microsoft middleware. Relying on Microsoft's 
distributors to achieve the Department's goals is fundamentally 
flawed, since the PC manufacturers have little or no economic 
incentive or ability to work with Microsoft's competitors, absent 
fundamental changes to the competitive landscape in the PC operating 
system market, which the RPFJ fails to seek.\8\ At best, the RPFJ 
will marginally increase the opportunity, but not the ability, of 
competitors to compete at some future date with Microsoft's 
middleware products. It does nothing directly to dislodge 
Microsoft's PC operating system monopoly or to restore the market 
for PC operating systems to the competitive dynamics the market 
would have possessed ``but for'' Microsoft's illegal 
conduct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\Findings of Fact, 84 F. Supp. 2d at 54 
(stating that ``[w]ithout significant exception, all OEMs pre-
install Windows on the vast majority of PCs that they sell, and they 
uniformly are of a mind.D. The loopholes in the RPFJ must be 
eliminated and its important ambiguities clarified
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While promising in principle, the disclosure remedies in the 
RPFJ (Sections III.D. and III.E) are likely to fail in practice to 
achieve the procompetitive objectives identified by the United 
States Justice Department (the ``Department'') in its 
Competitive Impact Statement. Key provisions in the RPFJ contain 
critical loopholes and glaring ambiguities. Given Microsoft's past 
disdain for compliance with the strictures of its prior antitrust 
consent decree with the Department, these ambiguities will likely 
lead to future litigation, particularly since Microsoft has 
repeatedly refused to answer any questions regarding whether it 
agrees or disagrees with the interpretations of the RPFJ proposed by 
the Department in the Competitive Impact Statement. Instead, it is 
clear that Microsoft's strategy is to say as little as possible 
about the meaning or application of the RPFJ prior to entry of 
judgment, hoping that any ambiguities in the language will 
ultimately be interpreted in its favor. In order to protect the 
public and ensure that the Department has actually secured a 
settlement that is consistent with its representations to the Court, 
the Department must force Microsoft to identify any disagreements 
that it has with the Department's interpretations prior to entry of 
the judgment. Unless such minimal steps are taken, the RPFJ will 
certainly fail to secure even the modest objectives it seeks to 
attain.
    The RPFJ is further flawed because it allows Microsoft to profit 
from its illegal acts by exacting royalties as a condition for 
making interoperability disclosures. Moreover, it gives Microsoft 
far too much discretion about how it will ``comply'' with 
the RPFJ. Given its past record of anticompetitive conduct, a 
remedial scheme which relies on Microsoft acting 
``reasonably'' is doomed to fail. After having 
successfully prosecuted its case against Microsoft, that there 
exists no commercially viable alternative to which they could switch 
in response to a substantial and sustained price increase or its 
equivalent by Microsoft.'').It would be tragic for the 
Department to shirk its duty under the law, and through entry of the 
RPFJ, allow Microsoft to maintain and expand its monopoly power. II. 
Sun Microsystems'' Interest Regarding the Terms of the 
RPFJ''
    Since its founding in 1982, Sun has been propelled by an 
innovative vision--;``The Network Is The Computer.'' 
TM Sun is a leader in the design, manufacture, and sale of computer 
hardware, software, and services. Sun directly competes with 
Microsoft across a wide variety of markets including operating 
systems, ``middleware'' platforms, software development 
tools, office productivity suites, directory services, and 
enterprise software.
    Sun's experience and expertise place it in a unique position to 
assess the true

[[Page 28526]]

competitive impact of the RPFJ. As one of Microsoft's leading 
competitors and as the creator and licensor of the Java platform, 
Sun was a prime target of the anticompetitive conduct at issue in 
United States v. Microsoft. In addition, because Sun designs, 
manufactures, and sells a wide variety of products and services that 
must interoperate with Microsoft's products and services, Sun's 
real- world experience regarding the difficulties and barriers to 
effective interoperability with Microsoft's products affords Sun 
unique insights into whether the various technical disclosures and 
licensing practices mandated under the RPFJ will actually achieve 
the results intended by the Department.
    Sun's comments on the RPFJ are not intended to be exhaustive. 
Instead, the comments focus on key shortcomings or problems with the 
RPFJ, which most directly impact Sun, its distributors, developers, 
and customers. Others, including trade organizations of which Sun is 
a member, are likely to raise additional problems with the RPFJ, 
which should be addressed prior to entry of the judgment. By 
omitting such subjects from its submission, Sun does not wish to 
convey to the Department the impression that it believes the 
remainder of the RPFJ is satisfactory to Sun. Rather, Sun has merely 
focused its comments to highlight particular areas of concern.
    III. The RPFJ Fails To Remedy the Continuing Harm to Competition 
Caused By Microsoft's Illegal Acts
    A. The RPFJ fails to dissipate Microsoft's monopoly power in the 
market for PC operating systems
    A remedies decree in an antitrust case ``must seek to 
unfetter a market from anticompetitive conduct, to terminate the 
illegal monopoly, deny the defendant the fruits of its statutory 
violation, and ensure that there remain no practices likely to 
result in monopolization in the future.''\9\ The market over 
which Microsoft has unlawfully maintained its monopoly power is the 
market for PC operating systems. It is that market--;the market 
for PC operating systems--; that must be restored to 
competition, and in which Microsoft's power must be eliminated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\Microsoft III, 253 F.3d at 103 (internal quotations 
and citations omitted). Although the Department acknowledges the 
required remedial objectives under the law, it fails to achieve them 
in practice. See Competitive Impact Statement (``CIS'') at 
24 (``Appropriate injunctive relief in an antitrust case 
should: (1) end the unlawful conduct; (2) ``avoid a recurrence 
of the violation'' and others like it; and (3) undo its 
anticompetitive consequences.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The RPFJ, however, fails to serve this fundamental objective. 
The first and most important flaw in the RPFJ lies in its failure to 
do anything to restore competition in the market for PC operating 
systems. But for Microsoft's anticompetitive conduct, the market 
would today provide consumers and software developers with the 
benefits of competitive choice among at least three alternative 
computing platforms for desktop computers: the Windows operating 
system, the Navigator browser, and the Java platform. As a direct 
result of Microsoft's anticompetitive conduct, consumers and 
developers today effectively enjoy no such choice. Rather than 
restore the market to the state it would have enjoyed but for 
Microsoft's illegal conduct, or even attempt to dissipate 
Microsoft's illegally maintained power over that market,the RPFJ 
accedes to and accepts Microsoft's monopoly over PC operating 
systems, and does nothing to directly and immediately restore that 
market to competition.
    Indeed, the RPFJ does not even focus its principal remedies on 
the relevant market: the market for PC operating systems. Instead, 
it focuses its principal remedies on entirely different markets: the 
market for distribution of Microsoft operating systems and the 
market for middleware. In light of the record established and 
affirmed in this case, the Department's reliance on Microsoft's own 
distributors -entities whose commercial viability is dependent on 
and inextricably tied to Microsoft's success--;to promote non-
Microsoft middleware products capable of threatening Microsoft's 
monopoly position is misplaced at best, and foolhardy at worst.
    1. The Department previously acknowledged that an effective 
remedy had to eliminate the applications barrier protecting 
Microsoft's monopoly In recognition of the Department's obligations 
under the law and the extent of Microsoft's misconduct, the 
Department originally set its remedial objectives much higher than 
those proposed in the RPFJ. In fact, both the Department and the 
District Court concluded that a combination of structural relief and 
conduct remedies was necessary to lower the applications barrier to 
entry and to restore competition in the market for PC operating 
systems.\10\ As the Department itself acknowledged, conduct 
remedies, by themselves, are likely to be insufficient in this case 
to remedy the past harm to competition:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\United States v. Microsoft Corp., 97 F. Supp. 2d 59 
(D.DC 2000), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, and remanded, 253 F.3d 34 
(DC Cir. 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [C]onduct remedies can do little to rectify the harm done to 
competition by Microsoft's illegal conduct in the past. For example, 
the evidence shows and the Court found that Microsoft's illegal 
conduct prevented Navigator and Java from eroding the applications 
barrier to entry ``for several years, and perhaps 
permanently'' because they could not facilitate entry unless 
they became almost ubiquitous and thus became attractive platforms 
for ISVs. A conduct remedy cannot undo the demise of Navigator and 
the concomitant rise of Internet Explorer, nor can it ensure that 
there will be other middleware threats comparable to Navigator in 
the future.\11\ According to the Department, ``[c]ompetition 
was injured in this case principally because Microsoft's illegal 
conduct raised entry barriers to the PC operating system market by 
destroying developments that would have made it more likely that 
competing operating systems would gain access to applications and 
other needed complements.''\12\ Thus, ``the key to 
a remedy in this case is to reduce Microsoft's ability to erect or 
maintain entry barriers.''\13\ To achieve this 
objective, the Department originally sought to divide Microsoft into 
an Applications Business and an Operating Systems Business in order 
to ``create incentives for Microsoft's Office and its other 
uniquely valuable applications to be made available to competing 
operating systems when that is efficient and profitable--;in 
other words, in response to ordinary market forces--;instead of 
being withheld strategically, at the sacrifice of profits and to the 
detriment of consumers--;in order to protect the Windows 
operating system monopoly.''\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\11 4/28/00 Plaintiffs'' Memo. in Support of 
Proposed Final Judgment at 7-;8 (citations omitted).
    \12\id. at 30.
    \13\Id.
    \14\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    But now that the Department has reversed its prior position and 
seeks to rely solely on conduct remedies, the remedies it has 
proposed are even less likely to rectify the harm done to 
competition than the interim conduct remedies previously adopted by 
the District Court. The conduct remedies of the RPFJ are simply not 
tailored to rectify the continuing harm or lower the barriers to 
competition for competing operating system vendors. For example, the 
RPFJ does not even attempt to redress the competitive harm caused by 
Microsoft's interference and disruption of the distribution channels 
for the Navigator browser or the Java platform, even though 
Microsoft correctly perceived that widespread distribution of these 
platforms would lower the barriers to competition protecting its 
monopoly. Nor does the RPFJ take any direct steps to loosen 
Microsoft's chokehold on the PC operating system market and 
facilitate the development of applications from both Microsoft and 
others that could run on competing operating systems. If, as the 
Department previously contended, the ``key to a remedy'' 
in this case is to reduce or eliminate Microsoft's ability to create 
and maintain barriers to competition, the RPFJ does not attempt to 
serve, much less achieve, that remedial objective.
    Although the Court of Appeals vacated and remanded the District 
Court's divestiture order, it affirmed the central liability 
findings against Microsoft. Rejecting Microsoft's numerous 
challenges, the Court of Appeals concluded that Microsoft had 
monopoly power over the PC operating system market, that Microsoft's 
monopoly was protected by an applications barrier to entry, and that 
Microsoft engaged in a panoply of illegal acts to maintain that 
monopoly in light of the competitive threat posed by the Navigator 
browser and the Java platform? Furthermore, it set forth the legal 
standard against which any remedy for such violations should be 
measured.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\Id. at 103.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the Department certainly had discretion to choose not to 
pursue a divestiture remedy on remand, the Court of Appeals' 
affirmance of the core liability findings against Microsoft provided 
no excuse for seeking watered-down conduct remedies that are likely 
to be even less effective than the interim conduct remedies 
previously ordered by the Court. This is not a case where the 
Department entered into a

[[Page 28527]]

settlement with a defendant in lieu of trial. Here, the District 
Court held, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, that Microsoft 
violated the antirust laws. By failing to remedy the effects of 
Microsoft's illegal acts, disgorge Microsoft's ill-gotten gains, and 
attack the barriers to competition protecting Microsoft's monopoly, 
the Department has shirked its duty under the law.
    2. The RPFJ fails to address the effects of Microsoft's 
distribution power
    Any remedy designed to restore competition in the PC operating 
system market must account for the economic realities of software 
platform development. Distribution is the key to competitive 
viability in the market for PC platform software? The applications 
barrier to entry which forms a ``positive feedback loop'' 
for Microsoft and a ``vicious cycle'' for Microsoft's 
competitors was a centerpiece of the Department's case: the number 
of installed units of a platform determines its commercial appeal to 
applications developers; the number and variety of applications 
available for a platform determines its commercial appeal to 
consumers; and the commercial appeal of the platform to consumers in 
turn drives its installed base and market share.\18\ As the Court of 
Appeals concluded, ``[b]ecause the applications barrier to 
entry protects a dominant operating system irrespective of quality, 
it gives Microsoft power to stave off even superior new 
rivals.''\19\ In large measure, the Navigator browser 
and the Java platform threatened Microsoft's monopoly because they 
had achieved widespread distribution on both Windows and non-Windows 
platforms, thereby becoming a potentially more attractive platform 
for application development than Windows. If developers increasingly 
chose to develop their applications to the Navigator and Java 
platforms, rather than the Windows platform, consumers would have 
greater freedom to switch away from the Windows operating system 
because they would still be able to run the applications that they 
desire using competing operating systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\Findings of Fact, 84 F. Supp. 2d at 
39-;40.
    \19\Microsoft III, 253 F.3d at 55-;56.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To restore competition in the PC operating system market, an 
appropriate remedy should attempt to place the market back in the 
position it would have been ``but for'' Microsoft's 
illegal conduct. In other words, an appropriate remedy would ensure, 
to the extent possible, that alternative platforms achieve the 
distribution that they would have received ``but for'' 
Microsoft's illegal conduct. Moreover, an appropriate remedy also 
would seek to open up Microsoft's distribution channels to expand 
consumer choice by ensuring that alternative platforms could compete 
on the merits with Microsoft's products, rather than having 
Microsoft's illegally maintained distribution powers effectively 
foreclose such choices.
    To evaluate the potential efficacy of the RPFJ, one must compare 
the competitive landscape before and after Microsoft's illegal acts. 
Prior to Microsoft's acts, the marketplace was undergoing dramatic 
changes as a result of the nearly simultaneous emergence of both the 
Navigator browser and the Java platform. By easily connecting 
consumers to resources across the Internet and providing a new 
platform for software development, these new, widely- distributed 
platforms threatened Microsoft's monopoly power because they 
afforded consumers the ability to run applications on many different 
operating systems, not just Windows. Customers could chose between 
different browsers as well as different implementations of the Java 
platform. They were not reliant on a single vendor for their 
platform software. At this inflection point in the market, the 
barriers to competition protecting Microsoft's monopoly looked 
increasingly precarious.
    Microsoft's internal documents demonstrate how serious that 
threat really was. Despite its dominant market position, Microsoft 
believed it was necessary to engage in a campaign of illegal conduct 
to crush this competition. As a result of that conduct, consumers no 
longer have any real competitive choices for browsers for PCs, other 
than Microsoft's Internet Explorer. As a practical matter, PC 
consumers also have been denied access to the latest, compatible 
versions of the Java platform as a result of Microsoft's conduct. 
Instead, Microsoft first offered an incompatible version of the Java 
platform, and now seeks to roll-out their ``knock-off'' 
middleware runtime, the .NET Framework/Common Language Runtime, that 
copies many of the features of the Java platform with one critical 
difference--;it runs only on Windows.
    The question that should be asked regarding the RPFJ is whether 
it will disgorge from Microsoft the fruits of its illegal acts and 
restore a competitive marketplace where consumers will have the 
ability to choose their platform software from an array of 
competitive choices. A critical review of the RPFJ makes plain it 
does not. 3. The RPFJ does little more than attempt to enjoin 
Microsoft from continuing to engage in the conduct already found to 
be unlawful
    Rather than attempting to undo the damage to competition 
resulting from Microsoft's actions and pry open the PC operating 
system market to competition, the RPFJ is purely forward- looking, 
focusing primarily on the precise Microsoft conduct already found to 
be unlawful.
    Injunctive relief which simply ``forbid[s] a repetition of 
the illegal conduct'' is insufficient under Section 2 because 
it would allow Microsoft to ``retain the full dividends of 
[its] monopolistic practices and profit from the unlawful restraint 
of trade which [it] had inflicted on competitors.''\20\ As the 
Supreme Court has made plain, an antitrust remedy ``does not 
end with enjoining continuance of the unlawful restraints'' but 
must also seek to undo the effects of the illegal acts and ensure 
that they do not reoccur. \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\Schine, 334 U.S. at 128.
    \21\See United States v. Paramount Pictures, 334 U.S. 
131,171 (1948).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Most of the RPFJ is oriented towards prohibiting a narrow set of 
future illegal conduct by Microsoft. For example, the RPFJ contains 
provisions which would prohibit Microsoft from:
    * retaliating against distributors of or developers for Non-
Microsoft Operating Systems and Non-Microsoft Middleware (Sections 
III.A and III.F);
    * entering into certain restrictive agreements relating to the 
distribution of or development for Non-Microsoft Operating Systems 
and Non-Microsoft Middleware (Sections III.C, III.F.2, III.G); or
    * preventing end-users and OEMs from enabling non-Microsoft 
Middleware Products over Microsoft Middleware Products (Section 
III.H). Although such provisions are certainly appropriate in light 
of Microsoft's past conduct, they merely enjoin Microsoft from 
continuing to break the law in the future, and do nothing to repair 
the damage to competition caused by Microsoft's past acts. 4. The 
RPFJ assumes that Microsoft's Windows distributors will promote 
competitive middleware products
    Sun questions whether the Department's reliance upon Microsoft's 
primary distributors, PC manufacturers, to re-start competition in 
the PC operating system market is fundamentally misplaced. In its 
Competitive Impact Statement, the Department contends that the RPFJ 
will ``restore the competitive threat that middleware products 
posed prior to Microsoft's unlawful undertakings.''\22\ 
The Department's assumption seems to be that by giving PC 
manufacturers greater contractual freedom to distribute non-
Microsoft Middleware Products, a rich market of competing middleware 
products will arise that could eventually give rise to alternative 
computing platforms capable of undermining Microsoft's application 
barrier to entry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\CIS at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The RPFJ, however, does nothing to ensure that such alternative 
platforms are actually distributed to consumers. If PC manufacturers 
choose not to distribute such software, consumers will never have 
the choice that they had, prior to Microsoft's illegal acts, when 
alternative platforms like the Navigator browser or the Java 
platform were ubiquitously distributed. The key question then is 
whether PC manufacturers will aggressively distribute non-Microsoft 
platforms. Unfortunately, the Department's Competitive Impact 
Statement offers no explanation or empirical evidence to support 
this critical assumption.
    Given the limited nature of the relief proposed in the RPFJ, Sun 
is not as sanguine as the Department about such prospects.
    First, despite the retaliation restrictions contained in the 
RPFJ, because Microsoft's market power is left largely untouched and 
PC manufacturers remain dependent solely on Microsoft for a critical 
component for their products, it is very likely that, in practice, 
many PC manufacturers will remain reluctant to risk incurring 
Microsoft's wrath by supporting competing platforms. Microsoft 
simply retains too many formal and informal tactics to reward its 
``friends,'' and punish its ``enemies.'' One 
need only look at PC manufacturers'' treatment of Microsoft's 
Internet Explorer for guidance on how the terms of the RPFJ are 
likely to be applied in practice. In July 2001, Microsoft announced 
that PC manufacturers, for the

[[Page 28528]]

first time, would be free to remove access to Internet Explorer. 
Since that time, not one PC manufacturer has removed the Internet 
Explorer icon from retail PCs.
    Second, under the terms of the RPFJ, competing middleware 
vendors are at such a competitive disadvantage to Microsoft that it 
will remain extremely difficult to secure distribution of these 
competing products through PC manufacturers. Under the RPFJ, 
Microsoft's ability to bundle middleware products into its Windows 
operating system would remain essentially unfettered. PC 
manufacturers would have the legal right to remove or disable 
certain Microsoft middleware products, but what commercial incentive 
will the PC manufacturers have to remove or disable the Microsoft 
products if they have already paid for such products in order to 
license the Windows operating system? Moreover, while Microsoft 
retains the ability to bundle its middleware product (e.g., a 
browser, media player, etc.) into every copy of Windows (absent an 
affirmative act by a PC manufacturer to exclude such product), a 
competitor would have to individually approach scores, if not 
hundreds, of different PC manufacturers around the world and 
negotiate a separate agreement with each to achieve a comparable 
degree of distribution. In addition, because the marginal cost to 
the PC manufacturer for the bundled Microsoft middleware product is 
effectively zero, PC manufacturers may be reluctant to pay non-
Microsoft middleware vendors a sufficient price to recoup the costs 
such middleware vendors would incur to make and sell competing 
products.
    Finally, since the vast majority of PC manufacturers are in the 
business of selling Windows PCs, some manufacturers might believe it 
is against their own commercial interests to support alternative 
middleware platforms. For example, if a middleware platform (e.g., 
the Java platform) truly lowers barriers to entry and allows 
consumers to run applications on any operating system (e.g., Apple 
Mac operating system, etc.) that supports that middleware platform, 
consumers eventually might chose to purchase their computers from 
vendors other than Windows PC vendors. Thus, the RPFJ fails to 
account for the fact that many PC manufacturers may derive 
substantial benefit from maintaining the applications barrier to 
entry protecting Microsoft's Windows monopoly. B. The RPFJ does not 
remedy the continuing competitive harm to web browsers
    Prior to Microsoft's illegal campaign, Netscape's Navigator 
browser was the market leading web browser by a wide margin.\23\ 
Today, Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser dominates the market, 
accounting for over 87% of all users. \24\To achieve this dramatic 
turn of events, the District Court found, and the Court of Appeals 
affirmed, that Microsoft engaged in a series of unlawful, 
anticompetitive acts:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\See Findings of Fact, 84 F. Supp. 2d at 
360.
    \24\2/21/01 StatMarket Report Regarding Global Browser 
Usage Share.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    * Exclusionary contracts with OEMs,\25\ IAPs,\26\ and ISVs;\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\See Microsoft III, 253 F.3d at 64.
    \26\See id. at 71.
    \27\See id. at 72.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    * Commingling of software code to make it technologically 
difficult to remove, Internet Explorer from Windows;\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\See id. at 67.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    * Anticompetitive deals with Apple Computer.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\See id. at 74.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Not only did Microsoft effectively destroy Navigator as a viable 
alternative platform, by seizing control over the web browser, 
Microsoft greatly expanded its market power. By dominating web 
browsers and effectively excluding all competitors, Microsoft 
secured the power to set and control the protocols and interfaces 
used for connecting with and communicating over the Internet.
    Imagine, for example, that a single company monopolized the 
manufacture and supply of telephones, such that it supplied 95% of 
the world's telephones. If that company were permitted to change the 
dial tone on its phones, or the keypad, in ways that permitted only 
phones made by it to call and interact with its installed base of 
telephones, the telephones made and sold by its competitors would 
have very little or no value, since they could no longer 
interoperate effectively with 95% of all telephones. And if that 
company also altered the telephones it made so that they worked 
best--;or indeed only--;with the telephone switches and 
answering machines that the monopoly telephone company also made, 
then that company would quickly obtain a monopoly over the telephone 
switch and answering machine markets as well.
    Microsoft's control over the browser and PC operating system 
provides Microsoft with just such unbridled power to dictate 
unilaterally the interfaces and protocols by which other devices and 
applications can interoperate with Microsoft's products and services 
over the Internet. The role played by the browser in communicating 
with devices, applications, and web services over the Internet is 
directly analogous to the role played by the consumer telephone in 
the telephone network.
    As a result of Microsoft's illegal acts, Microsoft can now 
exclude competing products and services from being able to 
communicate over the Internet with Microsoft's browser, or Microsoft 
can mandate interfaces and protocols which favor its products over 
competitors'' products. Thus, by virtue of its anticompetitive 
conduct, Microsoft has secured the power to potentially appropriate 
a public asset of immeasurable value--;the 
Internet--;through use of proprietary interfaces and protocols.
    Control of the browser also was essential to protecting 
Microsoft's PC operating system monopoly. By controlling this 
``killer application,'' Microsoft can determine which 
competing operating systems, if any, will be able to run Internet 
Explorer. Without first-rate browser support capable of 
communicating with the content available across the Internet, 
competing PC operating systems simply will not be able to attract 
consumers away from Microsoft's monopoly operating system.
    Finally, control of the browser was important in order for 
Microsoft to be able to control a key distribution channel for 
middleware that potentially threatened Microsoft's monopoly. 
Browsers have been a vital distribution channel for a variety of 
middleware products, including the Java platform, media players, 
instant messaging products, etc. If Microsoft did not control this 
distribution channel, competitors could have continued to use 
competing browsers as a vehicle for distributing non-Microsoft 
middleware.
    Consequently, the continuing competitive harm flowing from 
Microsoft's unlawful conduct is substantial. The RPFJ, however, does 
nothing directly to address it. Instead, it leaves Microsoft to 
enjoy the spoils of its illegal conduct. At best, the RPFJ attempts 
to make it easier for PC manufacturers to now distribute competing 
browsers. But given the dominant position that Internet Explorer has 
now achieved, who will develop and market a competing browser? 
Because Microsoft bundles Internet Explorer with its monopoly 
operating system, a competitor would have to compete against a 
product with a marginal cost to PC manufacturers and consumers of 
essentially zero, since Microsoft can recoup its costs from its 
monopoly products. Even if the competing browser were technically 
superior, Microsoft can regularly introduce new interfaces and 
protocols to interfere with the competing browser's ability to 
compete, forcing the competitor to chase each new proprietary 
standard Microsoft announces.
    Unless Microsoft is first stripped of the fruits of its illegal 
conduct, real competition in the browser market is unlikely to 
occur. Absent such remedial relief, it is akin to holding a 100-yard 
dash in which Microsoft has an 87-yard lead after jumping the gun 
and intentionally tripping all of its competitors. Consumers are 
directly harmed as a result. Instead of a marketplace offering many 
different browser choices, consumers are increasingly faced with 
only one choice -Microsoft's browser. C. The RPFJ does not remedy 
the substantial harm to competition caused by Microsoft's illegal 
acts against the Java platform
    The District Court found, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, 
that Microsoft engaged in numerous anticompetitive acts directed 
against the Java platform:
    * Exclusionary ISV deals;\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\See id. at 76.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    * Anticompetitive threats to Intel to stop Java platform 
development;\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\See id. at 78.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    * Deceiving developers into using Microsoft's incompatible 
implementation of the Java platform;\32\\33\\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\See id. at 77.
    \33\See Findings of Fact, 84 F. Supp. 2d at 
397 (explaining how Microsoft used some of its 
``surplus monopoly power'' to suppress distribution of 
Netscape Navigator and inflict further competitive damage on the 
distribution of the Java platform).
    \34\See United States v. Microsoft Corp., 980 F. Supp. 
537, 539 (D.DC 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    * Blocking distribution of Netscape Navigator--;a prime 
distribution channel for the Java platform to PCs?
    Prior to Microsoft's anticompetitive acts, Sun had secured two 
major distribution channels for delivering the Java platform to 
PCs--;Netscape's Navigator browser and Microsoft's Internet 
Explorer browser and

[[Page 28529]]

Windows operating system. By its illegal acts, Microsoft effectively 
blocked the distribution of compatible, upgraded versions of the 
Java platform through both channels, and substantially slowed the 
development of desktop applications written to the Java platform.
    First, by blocking distribution of Netscape Navigator and 
dramatically reducing its market share, Microsoft effectively closed 
this alternative channel for distributing compatible versions of the 
Java platform to PCs. Second, by developing and distributing its own 
incompatible version of the Java platform which was tied to Windows, 
Microsoft fragmented the Java platform in order to re-create its 
applications barrier to entry, ensuring that PC consumers only had 
Microsoft's version of the Java platform. By refusing to distribute 
compatible upgrades of the Java platform, Microsoft effectively 
froze desktop development for the Java platform by continuing to 
distribute an ``old'' version of the technology, which did 
not have the richer set of functionality available in later 
versions. Finally, by means of exclusionary deals, threats, and 
incompatible developer tools, Microsoft attempted to either deceive 
or coerce developers away from developing compatible applications 
written to the Java platform that could run on operating systems 
other than Windows.
    Since the trial, Microsoft has continued to attack the Java 
platform to the detriment of consumers. In its most recent version 
of Windows, Windows XP, Microsoft no longer included even the old 
version of the Java platform which it previously had been shipping 
as part of Windows in accordance with the terms of a settlement 
agreement with Sun. As a result, millions of consumers purchasing 
Windows XP will no longer be able to access web pages that contain 
applications written to the Java platform unless they engage in a 
time-consuming download of the entire Java platform.
    In addition, Microsoft recently unveiled its own competing 
middleware runtime--;the .NET Framework--;as part of its 
.NET initiative. During the time that Microsoft effectively halted 
the development and distribution of the Java platform for the PC for 
several years, it simultaneously was busy developing its own 
middleware runtime that copied the design and architecture of the 
Java platform with one glaring difference--;the .NET Framework 
runs only on Windows. Thus, not only did Microsoft's illegal conduct 
allow it to blunt the competitive threat which the Java platform 
posed to Microsoft's Windows monopoly, it also allowed Microsoft the 
time to try and catch up with many of the compelling features that, 
at the time, only the Java platform offered.
    The RPFJ, however, does not seek to remedy the continuing 
competitive harm caused by Microsoft's actions. For example, the 
RPFJ does nothing to attempt to put the marketplace in the position 
it would have been ``but for'' Microsoft's 
conduct--;ubiquitous distribution of an upgraded, compatible 
Java platform on top of every Windows operating system as an 
available, alternative platform for software applications. Nor does 
it account for the time-to-market advantage that the Java platform 
lost as a result of Microsoft's conduct, particularly now that 
Microsoft will attempt to compete against the Java platform with its 
.NET Framework.
    Instead of attempting to undo this damage to competition, the 
RPFJ would allow Microsoft to bundle its competing .NET Framework 
with Windows, while forcing Sun and its licensees to try and re-
create the distribution channels that Microsoft unlawfully 
destroyed.
    Absent real remedial relief, Microsoft will continue to reap the 
benefits of its unlawful conduct, and consumers will have no 
meaningful alternative computing platform available on PCs that is 
not controlled by Microsoft. IV. Critical Terms In The RPFJ Are 
Undefined or Ambiguous A. Significant ambiguities in the RPFJ must 
be cured to avoid further litigation
    The dispute between Microsoft and the Department regarding the 
prior consent decree demonstrates the need to carefully define 
technical terms to avoid future litigation and ensure the parties 
agree with respect to Microsoft's obligations. As the Department is 
well aware, the 1995 consent decree with Microsoft prevented 
Microsoft from requiring PC manufacturers to license other products 
as a condition of licensing the Windows operating system? However, 
the consent decree specified that this obligation did not 
``prohibit Microsoft from developing integrated 
products,'' though the term ``integrated products'' 
was left undefined?
    In 1997, the Department asked the District Court to find 
Microsoft in contempt for requiring PC manufacturers who licensed 
the Windows operating system to also license Internet Explorer. 
Although the District Court found that the Department's proposed 
definition was probably correct, the court declined to find 
Microsoft in contempt because Microsoft offered a ``plausible
interpretation,'' and any ambiguities had to be resolved in 
Microsoft's favor?
    Given that any ambiguities are likely to be resolved in 
Microsoft's favor in any future enforcement proceeding, Sun believes 
it is essential that any and all material ambiguities be clarified 
prior to the entry of the RPFJ.
    Although the Department offers its own interpretation of some of 
the RPFJ's ambiguous terms in the Competitive Impact Statement, 
Microsoft has repeatedly refused to reveal whether it disagrees with 
those interpretations. For example, following recent testimony by 
Microsoft's counsel, Charles Rule, before the Senate Judiciary 
Committee, members of the Committee posed a series of questions to 
Mr. Rule regarding whether Microsoft agreed with the Department's 
interpretation of the RPFJ as set forth in the Competitive Impact 
Statement. Mr. Rule's responses were telling. When asked a series of 
questions directed to whether ``Microsoft disagree[d] with 
anything stated in the Department's Competitive Impact Statement 
concerning the meaning and scope of the proposed Final 
Judgment,'' Mr. Rule refused to answer the questions directly, 
instead repeatedly referring to the same ``non-answer'':
    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.
    Microsoft's clear strategy is to refuse to reveal anything about 
its interpretations of the RPFJ prior to the Court's entry of the 
judgment, lest it become clear to both the Department and the public 
that Microsoft's understanding of its potential obligations under 
the RPFJ is substantially different from the Department's. Then, 
when disputes with the Department about the scope of its obligations 
arise, as they inevitably will, Microsoft will be free to argue that 
the RPFJ is ambiguous, and therefore must be construed, as a matter 
of law, in Microsoft's favor?
    While it certainly is in Microsoft's interest to pursue such a 
strategy, the Department should not risk being complicit in a scheme 
that would effectively mislead the Court and the public about the 
true nature and impact of the RPFJ. The Department should insist 
that Microsoft identify any and all disagreements that it has with 
the interpretations offered by the Department in the Competitive 
Impact Statement prior to entry of the RPFJ. Absent such an inquiry 
and a record of Microsoft's position, the District Court, Sun, and 
the public at large have no assurances that the terms of the RPFJ 
will actually be construed in the manner proposed by the Department 
in its Competitive Impact Statement. B. ``Interoperate'' 
and ``interoperating'' must be defined
    The key disclosure provisions contained in the RPFJ rely on the 
terms ``interoperate'' and ``interoperating'' to 
define the scope of Microsoft's obligations, but these critical 
terms are not expressly defined.
    Section III.D of the RPFJ would require Microsoft to disclose 
``for the sole purpose of interoperating with a Windows 
Operating System Product... the APIs and related Documentation that 
are used by Microsoft Middleware to interoperate with a Windows 
Operating System Product.'' (emphasis added).
    Section III.E would require Microsoft to: make available for use 
by third parties, for the sole purpose of interoperating with a 
Windows Operating System Product, on reasonable and non-
discriminatory terms .... any Communication Protocol that is... (i) 
implemented in a Windows Operating System Product installed on a 
client computer, and (ii) used to interoperate natively (i.e., 
without the addition of software code to the client operating system

[[Page 28530]]

product) with a Microsoft server operating system product. (emphasis 
added).\35\\36\\37\\38\\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\Id. at 539-;40 (emphasis added).
    \36\Id. at 541-;42.
    \37\Responses of Charles F. Rule to Judiciary Committee 
Questions at 13.
    \38\See Microsoft, 980 F. Supp. at 541 (``The Court 
must resolve any ambiguities in the terms of the Final Judgment in 
favor of Microsoft, the party charged with contempt.''); see 
also Cause v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 674 F.2d 921,927-;28 
(DC Cir. 1982).
    \39\See also Section III.H (providing that a Windows 
Operating System Product may invoke a Microsoft Middleware Product 
in any instance in which ``that Microsoft Middleware Product 
would be invoked solely for use in interoperating with a server 
maintained by Microsoft (outside the context of general Web 
browsing)'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Depending on the definition of these terms, the scope of 
Microsoft's obligations under these provisions could vary 
dramatically. Therefore, in order to avoid a reprise of the 
litigation surrounding the 1995 consent decree with Microsoft, the 
Department should clarify the meaning of these terms in the text of 
the RPFJ, particularly since any ambiguity is likely to be construed 
in Microsoft's favor in any enforcement action brought by the 
Department.
    An explicit definition of these terms is essential because Sun 
believes the Department and Microsoft likely attach very different 
meaning to these terms.
    For example, in the Competitive Impact Statement, the Department 
offers a number of broad characterizations regarding the scope of 
these interoperability disclosures:
    * ``[I]f 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.''\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\CIS at 38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    * ``Section III.E. will permit seamless interoperability 
between Windows Operating System Products and non-Microsoft servers 
on a network. For example, the provision requires the licensing of 
all Communications Protocols necessary for non-Microsoft servers to 
interoperate with the Windows Operating System Products'' 
implementation of the Kerberos security standard in the same manner 
as do Microsoft servers, including the exchange of Privilege Access 
Certificates. Microsoft must license for use by non-Microsoft server 
operating system products the Communications Protocols that Windows 
Operating System Products use to enable network services through 
mechanisms such as Windows server message block protocol/common 
Internet file system protocol communications, as well as Microsoft 
remote procedure calls between the client and server operating 
systems.''\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\CIS at 38-;39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    * ``Section III.D of the proposed Final Judgment requires 
Microsoft to disclose to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs and OEMs all of the 
interfaces and related technical information that Microsoft 
Middleware uses to interoperate with any Windows Operating System 
Product .... Microsoft will not be able to hamper the development or 
operation of potentially threatening software by withholding 
interface information or permitting its own products to use hidden 
or undisclosed interfaces.''\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\CIS at 33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of these comments, the Department appears to be 
interpreting ``interoperate'' to mean the ability of two 
different products to access, utilize, and support the full features 
and functionality of one another. Under the Department's 
interpretation, the disclosures would be of sufficient detail to 
allow a non-Microsoft server operating system to implement the 
Microsoft Communication Protocols in a manner such that the non-
Microsoft server operating system could be substituted for a 
Microsoft server operating system without any disruption, 
degradation, or impairment of all the features, functionality, and 
services of any Microsoft PC operating system connected to such non-
Microsoft server operating system.
    By contrast, in proceedings before the European Commission, 
Microsoft has asserted a much narrower interpretation of 
``interoperate'' than the Department's interpretation. In 
that forum, Microsoft has maintained it already discloses all 
information necessary to achieve interoperability between 
Microsoft's PC operating system and non-Microsoft server operating 
systems. Since Microsoft contends that they already disclose all of 
the information necessary to satisfy this narrow definition of 
``interoperate,'' if this definition were to prevail, 
Microsoft will disclose nothing new. Its conduct will remain 
unchanged.
    Under Microsoft's narrow definition, interoperability is a one-
way street that is satisfied if all of the functionality of a non-
Microsoft server operating system can be accessed from a Windows PC 
operating system. In contrast to the Department's position, 
Microsoft has repeatedly taken the position that interoperability 
does not require a disclosure sufficient to allow a Windows PC 
operating system to behave identically when connected to both 
Microsoft and non-Microsoft server operating systems. Moreover, 
Microsoft has previously claimed that ``interoperability'' 
relates only to those protocols and interfaces which Microsoft has 
chosen to document and make available to third parties, and should 
not include protocols and interfaces that Microsoft reserves for 
itself to use to connect its PC and server operating system 
products. Absent an explicit definition of this critical term in the 
RPFJ, Sun believes the disclosure provisions of the RPFJ are doomed 
to fail. To avoid future disputes over the meaning of this term and 
to ensure that the public actually receives a remedy that is 
consistent with the
    Department's representations in the Competitive Impact 
Statement, Sun proposes that the RPFJ should be amended to include 
the following definition:
    ``Interoperate'' or ``Interoperating'' means 
the ability of two different products to access, utilize and/or 
support the full features and functionality of one another in all of 
the ways they are intended to function. For example, a non- 
Microsoft operating system installed on a server computer 
``Interoperates'' with a Windows Operating System Product 
installed on a Personal Computer if such non-Microsoft server 
operating system can (a) be substituted for a Microsoft operating 
system running on a server computer connected to a Personal Computer 
running a Windows Operating System Product, and (b) provide the user 
of the non-Microsoft server operating system the ability to access, 
utilize and/or support the full services, features and functionality 
of the Windows Operating System Product that are accessed, utilized 
and/or supported by such Microsoft server operating system without 
any disruption, degradation or impairment in such services, features 
and functions. C. The scope of Microsoft's ``Communication 
Protocols'' disclosure should be clarified and exemplified
    As a vendor of server operating systems that must connect and 
communicate with Microsoft's monopoly PC operating system, the 
disclosure and licensing provisions in Section III.E relating to 
Microsoft's Communications Protocols are especially important to 
Sun's business. Although the term Communications Protocols is 
expressly defined, the RPFJ lacks any explicit examples regarding 
which Microsoft technologies would currently be required to be 
disclosed or what the extent of such disclosure would be in 
practice. While the terms of the RPFJ must be written to anticipate 
Microsoft's future conduct, there is no excuse for misunderstandings 
regarding Microsoft's obligations with respect to known, existing 
interoperability barriers. Because the technical terms surrounding 
this provision are potentially subject to varying interpretations, 
the RPFJ would be substantially improved if it gave better guidance 
on how these provisions would actually be applied in practice.
    For example, in its Competitive Impact Statement, the Department 
identifies some of the specific protocols it believes Microsoft will 
be required to disclose under Section III.E to the extent such 
protocols are implemented in Microsoft's PC operating system 
products, including: protocols relating to Microsoft's Internet 
Information Services (``IIS'') web server and Active 
Directory, Microsoft's implementation of the Kerberos security 
standard (including the exchange of Privilege Access Certificates), 
the Windows server message block protocol, the Windows common 
Internet file system protocol, Microsoft remote procedure calls 
between the client and server operating systems, and protocols that 
permit a runtime environment (e.g., the Common Language Runtime) to 
receive and execute code from a server.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\CIS at 37-;39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Microsoft, however, has refused to say whether it agrees with 
the Department's interpretation. To avoid future disputes and ensure 
that the parties agree on the kinds of protocols that will fall 
within the scope of the term ``Communications Protocols,'' 
the RPFJ should be amended to identify

[[Page 28531]]

particular examples of protocols that Microsoft would be required to 
disclose. Furthermore, in advance of entry of the RPFJ, Microsoft 
should be required to fully detail what it will disclose with regard 
to existing Communications Protocols that pose a barrier to 
interoperability. At a minimum, the Department should require 
Microsoft to identify any disagreements Microsoft has with the 
Department's interpretation of this provision prior to entry of the 
RPFJ. Unless the Department and Microsoft go through the exercise of 
attempting to apply this provision in practice, the public cannot be 
assured that there truly has been a ``meeting of the 
minds'' regarding the scope and meaning of this important 
provision.
    Not only should the Department clarify the RPFJ with examples of 
particular protocols that Microsoft currently would be required to 
disclose, the Department also should clarify the kinds of 
information Microsoft will be required to disclose regarding its 
Communications Protocols. Although the term Communications Protocols 
appears to be defined broadly in Section VI.B of the RPFJ, in 
practice, the actual application of these provisions is likely to 
give rise to many potential questions and disputes. For example,
    * Is everything that is shipped with Microsoft Windows server 
operating system products (e.g., Windows 2000 Server, Windows 2000 
Advanced Server, etc.), including Microsoft's Active Directory or 
IIS, part of the ``server operating system,'' and 
therefore potentially the subject of disclosure to the extent it 
comprises a ``Communications Protocol''?
    * Are Active Directory, Kerberos security protocol, COM+, Dfs, 
DLT, CIFS extensions, RPC, the Win 32 APIs, or Passport examples of 
``Communications Protocols'' that must be disclosed and 
licensed pursuant to Section III.E of the RPFJ?
    * Where Microsoft has extended an industry standard like 
Kerberos, will Microsoft be required to disclose both the standard 
portion of its implementation and its proprietary extensions?
    * Will Microsoft be required to disclose the details regarding 
its proprietary implementation of the Kerberos security protocol in 
Windows 2000 and Windows XP Professional, including the information 
necessary for a non-Microsoft server to be able to generate, 
exchange, and process the authentication and authorization data in 
Privilege Access Certificates?
    * What does ``make available for use by third 
parties'' mean in practice in the context of Section III.E? 
Will Microsoft be required to just disclose fields, formats, etc., 
or will it be required to disclose sufficient information to allow a 
competitor to create its own implementation of the Communications 
Protocol that will allow a competitor's server operating system to 
seamlessly interoperate with the Windows PC operating system in the 
same manner as a Microsoft server operating system?
    Unless such questions are resolved and clarified in advance of 
entry of the RPFJ, the disclosure and licensing obligations of 
Section III.E will not provide any meaningful relief. D. The scope 
of the ``carve-out'' provisions of Section III.J should be 
clarified Particularly troubling to Sun is the possibility that the 
``carve-out'' provisions of Section III.J might be broadly 
construed by Microsoft to exclude many of the kinds of disclosures 
that would otherwise fall within the scope of Sections III.D and 
III.E. Section III. J. 1 provides that no provision of the Final 
Judgment shall: [r]equire Microsoft to document, disclose or license 
to third parties: (a) portions of APIs or Documentation or portions 
or layers of Communications Protocols the disclosure of which would 
compromise the security of a particular installation or group of 
installations of anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, 
digital fights management, encryption or authentication systems, 
including without limitation, keys, authorization tokens or 
enforcement criteria .... (emphasis added).
    In the Competitive Impact Statement, the Department 
characterizes this exception as a ``narrow one, limited to 
specific end-user implementations of security items such as actual 
keys, authorization tokens or enforcement criteria, the disclosure 
of which would compromise the security of ``a particular 
installation or group of installations'' of the listed security 
features.''\44\ But nowhere in the RPFJ is the term 
``compromise the security of a particular installation or group 
of installations'' defined. What will this provision mean in 
practice? With respect to known interoperability problems relating 
to Active Directory, Microsoft's Kerberos security model, Windows 
Media Player, or the Passport authentication/authorization service, 
what portions of those protocols and interfaces can Microsoft refuse 
to disclose pursuant to this provision? If Microsoft refuses to 
disclose such information, will competitors be able to fully 
interoperate with all of the features and functionality of the 
Windows operating system, or will the value of the disclosure 
provisions be effectively eviscerated? What steps has the Department 
taken to ensure that, in practice, this exception will not swallow 
the intended effect of the disclosure provisions?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\CIS at 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Again, unless such questions are clarified in advance of entry 
of the RPFJ, Microsoft is likely to use this purportedly narrow 
exception to eviscerate its disclosure and licensing obligations 
under the RPFJ. E. The definition of ``Microsoft Middleware 
Product'' should be amended
    The definition of ``Microsoft Middleware 
Product''\45\ in the RPFJ is fundamentally flawed 
because it grants Microsoft discretion to limit its obligations 
merely based on the way it chooses to trademark its products. For 
middleware functionality that is distributed after entry of the 
Final Judgment, except for a small, specified class of middleware 
applications (e.g., Internet browsers, email client software, etc.), 
Microsoft's obligations under the RPFJ are not triggered unless it 
chooses to distribute the middleware product under a trademark other 
than ``Microsoft??'' or Functionality that Microsoft 
describes or markets as being part of a Microsoft Middleware Product 
(such as a service pack, upgrade, or bug fix for Internet Explorer), 
or that is a version of a Microsoft Middleware Product (such as 
Internet Explorer 5.5), shall be considered to be part of that 
Microsoft Middleware Product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\The RPFJ defines ``Microsoft Middleware 
Product'' as follows: 1. 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, and 2. for any functionality that is first 
licensed, distributed or sold by Microsoft after the entry of this 
Final Judgment and that is part of any Windows Operating System 
Product a. Internet browsers, email client software, networked 
audio/video client software, instant messaging software or b. 
functionality provided by Microsoft software that--; i 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; ii. is similar to the functionality provided by a 
Non-Microsoft Middleware Product; and iii. is Trademarked.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ``Windows??.''\46\In other words, after entry 
of the RPFJ, if Microsoft bundles its new middleware runtime 
alternative to the Java platform, the .NET Framework (also known as 
the Common Language Runtime) with Windows, it only would have to 
make disclosures about the APIs used by the .NET Framework or allow 
OEMs and consumers to remove access to it, if it chose to distribute 
the .NET Framework under the trademarked name ``.NET 
Framework.'' If it simply distributed the product under the 
name ``Microsoft* .NET Framework,'' its activities would 
appear to be unconstrained by the RPFJ. To allow Microsoft to evade 
its obligations under the RPFJ based on arbitrary trademarking 
practices is absurd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\See RPFJ, Sections VI.K and VI.T.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To avoid this result, the definition of ``Microsoft 
Middleware Product'' should be amended as follows: the 
``Trademarked'' requirement of Section VI.K.2.b.iii should 
be stricken; the terms ``.NET Framework'' and 
``Common Language Runtime'' should be added to Section 
VI.K.1; and the term ``middleware runtime environment'' 
should be added to Section VI.K.2.a.
    V. Section III.I's Licensing Provisions Allow Microsoft to 
Profit from Its Unlawful Acts
    A. Microsoft should not be allowed to demand royalties as a 
condition for making interoperability disclosures
    The licensing provisions of the RPFJ are fundamentally flawed 
because they would require the public to pay royalties to Microsoft 
in order to interoperate with Microsoft's illegally maintained 
monopoly products. If Microsoft had not engaged in its pattern of 
illegal conduct, its monopoly would have begun to dissipate, and it 
would have been unable to collect this 
``interoperability'' tax. As the Department itself 
previously recognized, ``[i]f Microsoft were in a competitive 
market, it would disclose its confidential interface information to 
other server software developers so that their complementary 
software would work optimally with, and thereby enhance the value 
of, Microsoft's PC operating systems.''\47\It is only 
because Microsoft has illegally maintained its PC operating system

[[Page 28532]]

monopoly and wishes to expand its monopoly to server operating 
systems that Microsoft has an incentive to withhold information from 
competitors regarding complementary software. Thus, the RPFJ, in 
effect, authorizes Microsoft to collect a portion of its monopoly 
rents through this licensing regime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\4/28/00 Plaintiffs'' Memo. in Support of 
Proposed Final Judgment at 28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, not only is Microsoft authorized to collect 
royalties for the ``privilege'' of interoperating with its 
illegal monopoly, the RPFJ places no limits on how high a royalty 
Microsoft can demand, other than the royalty must be reasonable. 
However, since competitors'' products must be able to 
interoperate with Microsoft's monopoly PC operating systems, they 
may be constrained to essentially pay whatever Microsoft demands.
    To ensure Microsoft does not continue to enjoy the fruits of its 
illegal conduct, Section III.I of the RPFJ should be amended to 
require Microsoft to grant any licenses required under the RPFJ on a 
royalty-free basis.
    B. Microsoft has too much discretion over licensing terms under 
the RPFJ Although Section III.I of the RPFJ places some limitations 
on the terms under which Microsoft must license its technology to 
facilitate the disclosure obligations of the RPFJ, Microsoft retains 
broad discretion, which it is likely to exploit.
    For example, Section III.I. 1 requires that all license terms be 
``reasonable.''
    A reasonableness standard, however, provides little practical 
guidance, and is a particularly poor choice in the case of a 
monopolist like Microsoft who has repeatedly broken the law to 
secure commercial advantages over its competitors. Similarly, the 
fact that licenses must be ``non- discriminatory'' could 
actually be exploited by Microsoft to ensure that its strongest 
competitors are denied access to Microsoft's disclosures. For 
instance, a small start-up company with no revenues and no existing 
intellectual property rights might be willing to agree to terms that 
would be commercially unacceptable to significant Microsoft 
competitors like Sun, IBM, or Novell.
    The terms of the RPFJ also allow Microsoft the ability to 
substantially delay making any interoperability disclosures. Under 
Section III.E, Microsoft does not even need to make its 
Communications Protocols available until nine months after 
submission of the RPFJ. But since Microsoft can insist that third 
parties enter into a license agreement before they receive any 
disclosures, Microsoft can continue to delay making disclosures to 
key competitors by dragging out negotiations and insisting on 
commercially unacceptable terms.
    Does the Department intend to review ongoing negotiations to 
ensure Microsoft is taking reasonable positions in the negotiations? 
How will the Department ensure that Microsoft does not exploit the 
negotiating process to facilitate delay and disadvantage key 
competitors? Will Microsoft's ich Microsoft must license its 
technology to facilitate the disclosure obligations of the RPFJ, 
Microsoft retains broad discretion, which it is likely to exploit.
    For example, Section III.I. 1 requires that all license terms be 
``reasonable.''
    A reasonableness standard, however, provides little practical 
guidance, and is a particularly poor choice in the case of a 
monopolist like Microsoft who has repeatedly broken the law to 
secure commercial advantages over its competitors. Similarly, the 
fact that licenses must be ``non- discriminatory'' could 
actually be exploited by Microsoft to ensure that its strongest 
competitors are denied access to Microsoft's disclosures. For 
instance, a small start-up company with no revenues and no existing 
intellectual property rights might be willing to agree to terms that 
would be commercially unacceptable to significant Microsoft 
competitors like Sun, IBM, or Novell.
    The terms of the RPFJ also allow Microsoft the ability to 
substantially delay making any interoperability disclosures. Under 
Section III.E, Microsoft does not even need to make its 
Communications Protocols available until nine months after 
submission of the RPFJ. But since Microsoft can insist that third 
parties enter into a license agreement before they receive any 
disclosures, Microsoft can continue to delay making disclosures to 
key competitors by dragging out negotiations and insisting on 
commercially unacceptable terms.
    Does the Department intend to review ongoing negotiations to 
ensure Microsoft is taking reasonable positions in the negotiations? 
How will the Department ensure that Microsoft does not exploit the 
negotiating process to facilitate delay and disadvantage key 
competitors? Will Microsoft's the Windows Operating System Product 
should behave identically in its interaction with both the Microsoft 
and non-Microsoft servers.''\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\CIS at 38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    * ``Section III.E. will permit seamless interoperability 
between Windows Operating System Products and non-Microsoft servers 
on a network. For example, the provision requires the licensing of 
all Communications Protocols necessary for non-Microsoft servers to 
interoperate with the Windows Operating System Products'' 
implementation of the Kerberos security standard in the same manner 
as do Microsoft servers, including the exchange of Privilege Access 
Certificates. Microsoft must license for use by non-Microsoft server 
operating system products the Communications Protocols that Windows 
Operating System Products use to enable network services through 
mechanisms such as Windows server message block protocol/common 
Internet file system protocol communications, as well as Microsoft 
remote procedure calls between the client and server operating 
systems.''\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\CIS at 38-;39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    * ``Section III.D of the proposed Final Judgment requires 
Microsoft to disclose to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs and OEMs all of the 
interfaces and related technical information that Microsoft 
Middleware uses to interoperate with any Windows Operating System 
Product .... Microsoft will not be able to hamper the development or 
operation of potentially threatening software by withholding 
interface information or permitting its own products to use hidden 
or undisclosed interfaces.''\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\CIS at 33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of these comments, the Department appears to be 
interpreting ``interoperate'' to mean the ability of two 
different products to access, utilize, and support the full features 
and functionality of one another. Under the Department's 
interpretation, the disclosures would be of sufficient detail to 
allow a non-Microsoft server operating system to implement the 
Microsoft Communication Protocols in a manner such that the non-
Microsoft server operating system could be substituted for a 
Microsoft server operating system without any disruption, 
degradation, or impairment of all the features, functionality, and 
services of any Microsoft PC operating system connected to such non-
Microsoft server operating system.
    By contrast, in proceedings before the European Commission, 
Microsoft has asserted a much narrower interpretation of 
``interoperate'' than the Department's interpretation. In 
that forum, Microsoft has maintained it already discloses all 
information necessary to achieve interoperability between 
Microsoft's PC operating system and non-Microsoft server operating 
systems. Since Microsoft contends that they already disclose all of 
the information necessary to satisfy this narrow definition of 
``interoperate,'' if this definition were to prevail, 
Microsoft will disclose nothing new. Its conduct will remain 
unchanged.
    Under Microsoft's narrow definition, interoperability is a one-
way street that is satisfied if all of the functionality of a non-
Microsoft server operating system can be accessed from a Windows PC 
operating system. In contrast to the Department's position, 
Microsoft has repeatedly taken the position that interoperability 
does not require a disclosure sufficient to allow a Windows PC 
operating system to behave identically when connected to both 
Microsoft and non-Microsoft server operating systems. Moreover, 
Microsoft has previously claimed that ``interoperability'' 
relates only to those protocols and interfaces which Microsoft has 
chosen to document and make available to third parties, and should 
not include protocols and interfaces that Microsoft reserves for 
itself to use to connect its PC and server operating system 
products. Absent an explicit definition of this critical term in the 
RPFJ, Sun believes the disclosure provisions of the RPFJ are doomed 
to fail. To avoid future disputes over the meaning of this term and 
to ensure that the public actually receives a remedy that is 
consistent with the
    Department's representations in the Competitive Impact 
Statement, Sun proposes that the RPFJ should be amended to include 
the following definition:
    ``Interoperate'' or ``Interoperating'' means 
the ability of two different products to access, utilize and/or 
support the full features and functionality of one another in all of 
the ways they are intended to function. For example, a non- 
Microsoft operating system installed on a server computer 
``Interoperates'' with a Windows Operating System Product 
installed on a Personal Computer if such non-Microsoft server 
operating system can (a) be substituted for a Microsoft operating 
system running on a server computer connected to a Personal Computer 
running a Windows Operating System Product, and (b) provide the user 
of the non-Microsoft server operating system the ability to access, 
utilize and/or support the full services, features and functionality 
of the Windows Operating System Product that are accessed, utilized 
and/or supported by such Microsoft server operating system without 
any disruption, degradation or impairment in such services, features 
and functions. C. The scope of Microsoft's ``Communication 
Protocols'' disclosure should be clarified and exemplified
    As a vendor of server operating systems that must connect and 
communicate with Microsoft's monopoly PC operating system, the 
disclosure and licensing provisions in Section III.E relating to 
Microsoft's Communications Protocols are especially important to 
Sun's business. Although the term Communications Protocols is 
expressly defined, the RPFJ lacks any explicit examples regarding 
which Microsoft technologies would currently be required to be 
disclosed or what the extent of such disclosure would be in 
practice. While the terms of the RPFJ must be written to anticipate 
Microsoft's future conduct, there is no excuse for misunderstandings 
regarding Microsoft's obligations with respect to known, existing 
interoperability barriers. Because the technical terms surrounding 
this provision are potentially subject to varying interpretations, 
the RPFJ would be substantially improved if it gave better guidance 
on how these provisions would actually be applied in practice.
    For example, in its Competitive Impact Statement, the Department 
identifies some of the specific protocols it believes Microsoft will 
be required to disclose under Section III.E to the extent such 
protocols are implemented in Microsoft's PC operating system 
products, including: protocols relating to Microsoft's Internet 
Information Services (``IIS'') web server and Active 
Directory, Microsoft's implementation of the Kerberos security 
standard (including the exchange of Privilege Access Certificates), 
the Windows server message block protocol, the Windows common 
Internet file system protocol, Microsoft remote procedure calls 
between the client and server operating systems, and protocols that 
permit a runtime environment (e.g., the Common Language Runtime) to 
receive and execute code from a server.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\CIS at 37-;39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Microsoft, however, has refused to say whether it agrees with 
the Department's interpretation. To avoid future disputes and ensure 
that the parties agree on the kinds of protocols that will fall 
within the scope of the term ``Communications Protocols,'' 
the RPFJ should be amended to identify

[[Page 28531]]

particular examples of protocols that Microsoft would be required to 
disclose. Furthermore, in advance of entry of the RPFJ, Microsoft 
should be required to fully detail what it will disclose with regard 
to existing Communications Protocols that pose a barrier to 
interoperability. At a minimum, the Department should require 
Microsoft to identify any disagreements Microsoft has with the 
Department's interpretation of this provision prior to entry of the 
RPFJ. Unless the Department and Microsoft go through the exercise of 
attempting to apply this provision in practice, the public cannot be 
assured that there truly has been a ``meeting of the 
minds'' regarding the scope and meaning of this important 
provision.
    Not only should the Department clarify the RPFJ with examples of 
particular protocols that Microsoft currently would be required to 
disclose, the Department also should clarify the kinds of 
information Microsoft will be required to disclose regarding its 
Communications Protocols. Although the term Communications Protocols 
appears to be defined broadly in Section VI.B of the RPFJ, in 
practice, the actual application of these provisions is likely to 
give rise to many potential questions and disputes. For example,
    * Is everything that is shipped with Microsoft Windows server 
operating system products (e.g., Windows 2000 Server, Windows 2000 
Advanced Server, etc.), including Microsoft's Active Directory or 
IIS, part of the ``server operating system,'' and 
therefore potentially the subject of disclosure to the extent it 
comprises a ``Communications Protocol''?
    * Are Active Directory, Kerberos security protocol, COM+, Dfs, 
DLT, CIFS extensions, RPC, the Win 32 APIs, or Passport examples of 
``Communications Protocols'' that must be disclosed and 
licensed pursuant to Section III.E of the RPFJ?
    * Where Microsoft has extended an industry standard like 
Kerberos, will Microsoft be required to disclose both the standard 
portion of its implementation and its proprietary extensions?
    * Will Microsoft be required to disclose the details regarding 
its proprietary implementation of the Kerberos security protocol in 
Windows 2000 and Windows XP Professional, including the information 
necessary for a non-Microsoft server to be able to generate, 
exchange, and process the authentication and authorization data in 
Privilege Access Certificates?
    * What does ``make available for use by third 
parties'' mean in practice in the context of Section III.E? 
Will Microsoft be required to just disclose fields, formats, etc., 
or will it be required to disclose sufficient information to allow a 
competitor to create its own implementation of the Communications 
Protocol that will allow a competitor's server operating system to 
seamlessly interoperate with the Windows PC operating system in the 
same manner as a Microsoft server operating system?
    Unless such questions are resolved and clarified in advance of 
entry of the RPFJ, the disclosure and licensing obligations of 
Section III.E will not provide any meaningful relief. D. The scope 
of the ``carve-out'' provisions of Section III.J should be 
clarified Particularly troubling to Sun is the possibility that the 
``carve-out'' provisions of Section III.J might be broadly 
construed by Microsoft to exclude many of the kinds of disclosures 
that would otherwise fall within the scope of Sections III.D and 
III.E. Section III. J. 1 provides that no provision of the Final 
Judgment shall: [r]equire Microsoft to document, disclose or license 
to third parties: (a) portions of APIs or Documentation or portions 
or layers of Communications Protocols the disclosure of which would 
compromise the security of a particular installation or group of 
installations of anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, 
digital fights management, encryption or authentication systems, 
including without limitation, keys, authorization tokens or 
enforcement criteria .... (emphasis added).
    In the Competitive Impact Statement, the Department 
characterizes this exception as a ``narrow one, limited to 
specific end-user implementations of security items such as actual 
keys, authorization tokens or enforcement criteria, the disclosure 
of which would compromise the security of ``a particular 
installation or group of installations'' of the listed security 
features.''\44\ But nowhere in the RPFJ is the term 
``compromise the security of a particular installation or group 
of installations'' defined. What will this provision mean in 
practice? With respect to known interoperability problems relating 
to Active Directory, Microsoft's Kerberos security model, Windows 
Media Player, or the Passport authentication/authorization service, 
what portions of those protocols and interfaces can Microsoft refuse 
to disclose pursuant to this provision? If Microsoft refuses to 
disclose such information, will competitors be able to fully 
interoperate with all of the features and functionality of the 
Windows operating system, or will the value of the disclosure 
provisions be effectively eviscerated? What steps has the Department 
taken to ensure that, in practice, this exception will not swallow 
the intended effect of the disclosure provisions?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\CIS at 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Again, unless such questions are clarified in advance of entry 
of the RPFJ, Microsoft is likely to use this purportedly narrow 
exception to eviscerate its disclosure and licensing obligations 
under the RPFJ. E. The definition of ``Microsoft Middleware 
Product'' should be amended
    The definition of ``Microsoft Middleware 
Product''\45\ in the RPFJ is fundamentally flawed 
because it grants Microsoft discretion to limit its obligations 
merely based on the way it chooses to trademark its products. For 
middleware functionality that is distributed after entry of the 
Final Judgment, except for a small, specified class of middleware 
applications (e.g., Internet browsers, email client software, etc.), 
Microsoft's obligations under the RPFJ are not triggered unless it 
chooses to distribute the middleware product under a trademark other 
than ``Microsoft??'' or Functionality that Microsoft 
describes or markets as being part of a Microsoft Middleware Product 
(such as a service pack, upgrade, or bug fix for Internet Explorer), 
or that is a version of a Microsoft Middleware Product (such as 
Internet Explorer 5.5), shall be considered to be part of that 
Microsoft Middleware Product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\The RPFJ defines ``Microsoft Middleware 
Product'' as follows: 1. 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, and 2. for any functionality that is first 
licensed, distributed or sold by Microsoft after the entry of this 
Final Judgment and that is part of any Windows Operating System 
Product a. Internet browsers, email client software, networked 
audio/video client software, instant messaging software or b. 
functionality provided by Microsoft software that--; i 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; ii. is similar to the functionality provided by a 
Non-Microsoft Middleware Product; and iii. is Trademarked.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ``Windows??.''\46\In other words, after entry 
of the RPFJ, if Microsoft bundles its new middleware runtime 
alternative to the Java platform, the .NET Framework (also known as 
the Common Language Runtime) with Windows, it only would have to 
make disclosures about the APIs used by the .NET Framework or allow 
OEMs and consumers to remove access to it, if it chose to distribute 
the .NET Framework under the trademarked name ``.NET 
Framework.'' If it simply distributed the product under the 
name ``Microsoft* .NET Framework,'' its activities would 
appear to be unconstrained by the RPFJ. To allow Microsoft to evade 
its obligations under the RPFJ based on arbitrary trademarking 
practices is absurd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\See RPFJ, Sections VI.K and VI.T.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To avoid this result, the definition of ``Microsoft 
Middleware Product'' should be amended as follows: the 
``Trademarked'' requirement of Section VI.K.2.b.iii should 
be stricken; the terms ``.NET Framework'' and 
``Common Language Runtime'' should be added to Section 
VI.K.1; and the term ``middleware runtime environment'' 
should be added to Section VI.K.2.a.
    V. Section III.I's Licensing Provisions Allow Microsoft to 
Profit from Its Unlawful Acts
    A. Microsoft should not be allowed to demand royalties as a 
condition for making interoperability disclosures
    The licensing provisions of the RPFJ are fundamentally flawed 
because they would require the public to pay royalties to Microsoft 
in order to interoperate with Microsoft's illegally maintained 
monopoly products. If Microsoft had not engaged in its pattern of 
illegal conduct, its monopoly would have begun to dissipate, and it 
would have been unable to collect this 
``interoperability'' tax. As the Department itself 
previously recognized, ``[i]f Microsoft were in a competitive 
market, it would disclose its confidential interface information to 
other server software developers so that their complementary 
software would work optimally with, and thereby enhance the value 
of, Microsoft's PC operating systems.''\47\It is only 
because Microsoft has illegally maintained its PC operating system

[[Page 28532]]

monopoly and wishes to expand its monopoly to server operating 
systems that Microsoft has an incentive to withhold information from 
competitors regarding complementary software. Thus, the RPFJ, in 
effect, authorizes Microsoft to collect a portion of its monopoly 
rents through this licensing regime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\4/28/00 Plaintiffs'' Memo. in Support of 
Proposed Final Judgment at 28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, not only is Microsoft authorized to collect 
royalties for the ``privilege'' of interoperating with its 
illegal monopoly, the RPFJ places no limits on how high a royalty 
Microsoft can demand, other than the royalty must be reasonable. 
However, since competitors'' products must be able to 
interoperate with Microsoft's monopoly PC operating systems, they 
may be constrained to essentially pay whatever Microsoft demands.
    To ensure Microsoft does not continue to enjoy the fruits of its 
illegal conduct, Section III.I of the RPFJ should be amended to 
require Microsoft to grant any licenses required under the RPFJ on a 
royalty-free basis.
    B. Microsoft has too much discretion over licensing terms under 
the RPFJ Although Section III.I of the RPFJ places some limitations 
on the terms under which Microsoft must license its technology to 
facilitate the disclosure obligations of the RPFJ, Microsoft retains 
broad discretion, which it is likely to exploit.
    For example, Section III.I. 1 requires that all license terms be 
``reasonable.''
    A reasonableness standard, however, provides little practical 
guidance, and is a particularly poor choice in the case of a 
monopolist like Microsoft who has repeatedly broken the law to 
secure commercial advantages over its competitors. Similarly, the 
fact that licenses must be ``non- discriminatory'' could 
actually be exploited by Microsoft to ensure that its strongest 
competitors are denied access to Microsoft's disclosures. For 
instance, a small start-up company with no revenues and no existing 
intellectual property rights might be willing to agree to terms that 
would be commercially unacceptable to significant Microsoft 
competitors like Sun, IBM, or Novell.
    The terms of the RPFJ also allow Microsoft the ability to 
substantially delay making any interoperability disclosures. Under 
Section III.E, Microsoft does not even need to make its 
Communications Protocols available until nine months after 
submission of the RPFJ. But since Microsoft can insist that third 
parties enter into a license agreement before they receive any 
disclosures, Microsoft can continue to delay making disclosures to 
key competitors by dragging out negotiations and insisting on 
commercially unacceptable terms.
    Does the Department intend to review ongoing negotiations to 
ensure Microsoft is taking reasonable positions in the negotiations? 
How will the Department ensure that Microsoft does not exploit the 
negotiating process to facilitate delay and disadvantage key 
competitors? Will Microsoft's middleware products. It does nothing 
directly to dislodge Microsoft's PC operating system monopoly or to 
restore the market for PC operating systems to the competitive 
dynamics the market would have possessed ``but for'' 
Microsoft's illegal conduct. \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\Findings of Fact, 84 F. Supp. 2d at 54 
(stating that ``[w]ithout significant exception, all OEMs pre-
install Windows on the vast majority of PCs that they sell, and they 
uniformly are of a mind.D. The loopholes in the RPFJ must be 
eliminated and its important ambiguities clarified
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While promising in principle, the disclosure remedies in the 
RPFJ (Sections III.D. and III.E) are likely to fail in practice to 
achieve the procompetitive objectives identified by the United 
States Justice Department (the ``Department'') in its 
Competitive Impact Statement. Key provisions in the RPFJ contain 
critical loopholes and glaring ambiguities. Given Microsoft's past 
disdain for compliance with the strictures of its prior antitrust 
consent decree with the Department, these ambiguities will likely 
lead to future litigation, particularly since Microsoft has 
repeatedly refused to answer any questions regarding whether it 
agrees or disagrees with the interpretations of the RPFJ proposed by 
the Department in the Competitive Impact Statement. Instead, it is 
clear that Microsoft's strategy icompetitors be forced to sign 
license agreements before they know the scope of information that 
Microsoft will or will not disclose? Does the Department expect that 
the proposed Technical Committee will be involved in resolving such 
disputes? If so, will Technical Committee members have the requisite 
licensing and legal experience to assess whether Microsoft is 
insisting upon commercially unreasonable terms?
    To ensure Microsoft cannot circumvent the intent of the RPFJ, 
Sun proposes that the RPFJ be amended to include a publicly 
available template identifying the terms under which Microsoft will 
license its technology pursuant to the RPFJ. In principle, this 
approach is analogous to Section III.B which requires Microsoft to 
have uniform license agreements with OEMs in accordance with 
published, uniform royalty rates. Requiring Microsoft to identify 
this license template in advance would serve two important 
objectives. First, it would help limit Microsoft's ability to evade 
the intent of the RPFJ through negotiation tactics. Second, it would 
allow the public to understand the true costs and conditions of 
licensing under the RPFJ in advance of entry of the RPFJ. Unless the 
material licensing terms are specified in advance, neither the 
Department nor the public can accurately assess the actual 
commercial significance of the proposed disclosure obligations.
    C. Microsoft should not be allowed to force third parties to 
forfeit their intellectual property claims against Microsoft
    Section 111.1.5 provides that third parties ``may be 
required to grant to Microsoft on reasonable and nondiscriminatory 
terms a license to any intellectual property rights it may have 
relating to the exercise of their options or alternatives provided 
by this Final Judgment.'' In other words, Microsoft would be 
free to infringe a third party's patents or copyrights, or steal its 
trade secrets, and then by virtue of its monopoly position, force 
such third party to grant Microsoft a license to do so as the price 
that third party must pay in order to interoperate with Microsoft's 
monopoly product. If Microsoft wished to obtain rights to practice 
or use a competitor's intellectual property, it could do so simply 
by incorporating that technology into Windows, then insisting on 
both a royalty and a grant-back license as the consideration that 
competitor must provide in order to enable its products to 
interoperate with Microsoft's monopolized PCs.
    Indeed, Microsoft's competitors would have to license Microsoft 
the right to whatever intellectual property Microsoft may have 
incorporated into Windows even before they know what intellectual 
property Microsoft has stolen or infringed. No other company has 
such power, let alone governmental blessing and endorsement, to 
extort such concessions.
    Sun therefore proposes that the RPFJ be amended to strike 
Section 111.I.5 in its entirety.
    VI. Conclusion
    The RPFJ fails to remedy the continuing competitive harm 
resulting from Microsoft's actions, and instead improperly accedes 
to Microsoft's illegally maintained and expanded monopoly power. The 
Department should withdraw its support for the RPFJ, and instead 
pursue remedies that will restore competition to the PC operating 
system market, prevent Microsoft from expanding its monopoly in that 
market into adjacent and downstream markets, and redress the harm to 
competition caused by Microsoft's illegal acts. At a minimum, the 
Department should seek to remedy directly the specific harm to 
competition caused by Microsoft's illegal acts against the Navigator 
browser and the Java platform, which formed the very heart of the 
Department's case against Microsoft.
    Because critical terms in the RPFJ are undefined or ambiguous, 
the Department also should assure the public that Microsoft is bound 
by the interpretation of the RPFJ set forth in the Department's 
Competitive Impact Statement.
    Finally, the Department should delay seeking entry of the RPFJ 
until the completion of trial on the remedies sought by the 
Department's co-plaintiffs, the Litigating States. Sun believes that 
the evidentiary record from that trial is likely to demonstrate the 
substantial flaws and inadequacies of the RPFJ and cause the 
Department to seriously re-consider whether its support for the RPFJ 
is in the public interest.

                            Table of Contents
 
                                                                    Page
                                                               No.
 
I. Introduction..................................................      1
  A Competition in the market for PC operating systems must be         2
   restored......................................................
  B. Microsoft's unlawful power to exclude competition in              4
   adjacent and downstream markets must be stopped and eventually
   dissipated....................................................
  C. The RPFJ fails to remedy the monopoly illegally maintained        5
   by Microsoft..................................................
  D. The loopholes in the RPFJ must be eliminated and its              7
   important ambiguities clarified...............................
II. Sun Microsystems'' Interest Regarding the Terms of the        8
 RPFJ............................................................
III. The RPFJ Fails To Remedy the Continuing Harm to Competition       9
 Caused By Microsoft's Illegal Acts..............................
  A. The RPFJ fails to dissipate Microsoft's monopoly power in         9
   the market for PC operating systems...........................
    1. The Department previously acknowledged that an effective       10
     remedy had to eliminate the applications barrier protecting
     Microsoft's monopoly........................................

[[Page 28533]]

 
    2. The RPFJ fails to address the effects of Microsoft's           13
     distribution power..........................................
    3. The RPFJ does little more than attempt to enjoin Microsoft     15
     from continuing to engage in the conduct already found to be
     unlawful....................................................
    4. The RPFJ assumes that Microsoft's Windows distributors         16
     will promote competitive middleware products................
  B. The RPFJ does not remedy the continuing competitive harm to      19
   web browsers..................................................
  C. The RPFJ does not remedy the substantial harm to competition     22
   caused by Microsoft's illegal acts against the Java platform..
IV Critical Terms In The RPFJ Are Undefined or Ambiguous.........     24
  A. Significant ambiguities in the RPFJ must be cured to avoid       24
   further litigation............................................
    B. ``Interoperate'' and                                 27
     ``interoperating'' must be defined................
  C. The scope of Microsoft's ``Communication                    30
   Protocols'' disclosure should be clarified and
   exemplified...................................................
  D. The scope of the ``carve-out'' provisions of           32
   Section III J should be clarified.............................
  E. The definition of ``Microsoft Middleware Product''     34
   should be amended.............................................
V. Section III I's Licensing Provisions Allow Microsoft to Profit     35
 from Its Unlawful Acts..........................................
  A. Microsoft should not be allowed to demand royalties as a         35
   condition for making interoperability disclosures.............
  B. Microsoft has too much discretion over licensing terms under     36
   the RPFJ......................................................
  C. Microsoft should not be allowed to force third parties to        38
   forfeit their intellectual property claims against Microsoft..
VI. Conclusion...................................................     39
 



MTC-00029176

From: Eric Harden
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 9:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Eric Harden
105 LaFavers Road
Russell Springs, KY 42642
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 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,
    Eric Harden



MTC-00029177

From: Tom Burke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have been associated with the computer revolution since the 
early 1960's I have seen the growth and witnessed through my work on 
the Space Program the tremendous things that can be done with the 
computer Attached is a letter expressing my sincere thoughts that 
the current Microsoft Settlement is fir and should be implemented 
without futher delay
    Please feel free to contact me if needed
    Thomas A Burke
    Phone: 321-;259-;2284
    E-Mail: tburk6@cfl rr com
    Melbourne, Florida 32935
28 January 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr Ashcroft:
    I have been associated with the computer revolution since the 
early 196's I have seen the growth and witnessed through my work on 
the Space Program the tremendous things that can be done with the 
computer My graduate work dealt with many papers, which visualized 
the many possibilities that computers offered to civilization Re-
reading these notes today I see that I did not come close to 
understanding what the computer revolution held for our society 
Thank God for visionaries associated with Microsoft who have taken 
conceptual ideas not dreamed of in the early days of computers and 
made them into today/Es standards Looking ahead for the next forty 
years I firmly believe that we will see that we have only begun to 
scratch the surface of what technology and social development driven 
by computers can achieve Most of the growth of this revolution has 
occurred during the past 10 years when Microsoft released the power 
of the computer and the Internet through the introduction of the 
Windows operating System pIt would be a crime of the greatest 
magnitude to stymie this innovation because competitors lack the 
vision to move with the concepts being developed for our future The 
government rather than holding back these ideas should recognize 
that this technology has reached this pinnacle without major 
government intervention Why start now?
    Microsoft is a good company and I was very glad when the 
antitrust lawsuit filed against them was finally settled There is no 
need for further litigation in this issue I truly believe that the 
resolution is both fair and in the interest of the people of this 
country
    The provisions of this settlement are unique to this type of 
lawsuit This is the first lawsuit ever that requires a company to 
disclose internal information about its interfacing new software 
with its current systems The Microsoft settlement also includes 
provisions that restrict Microsoft from entering into any kind of 
agreements that would limit competition among software companies 
This settlement truly addresses all the concerns of the people, and 
keeps competition viable within this market
    But clever people like me who talk loudly in restaurants, see 
this as a deliberate ambiguity A plea for justice in a mechanized 
society.
    I see no need for further litigation Vast amounts time and 
resources have already been spent on pursuing Microsoft and I think 
it's time that no more be used The resolution now on the table is a 
fine one I urge you to support it and let it stand as is I thank you 
for your time and I am sure that you will do what you feel is best 
for people and economy of this country
    But is suspense, as Hitchcock states, in the box No, there isn't 
room, the ambiguity's put on weight.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Burke



MTC-00029179

From: Joyce Greer
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 9:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joyce Greer
45 Northridge Dr.
Cody, Wy 82414
January 28, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice
Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:

[[Page 28534]]

    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,
    Joyce Greer



MTC-00029180

From: James B. Rassi
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 9:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
James B. Rassi
111 Schramm Drive
Pekin, IL 61554-;2539
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 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.
    Competions 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,
    James B. Rassi



MTC-00029181

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:29pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Let them off the hook. They and their stock holders have 
suffered enough. Let the lawyers seek new bait.
    Ed Brant



MTC-00029182

From: Gil Friend
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
United States Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    I am writing to comment on the proposed Microsoft/DOJ anti-trust 
settlement. As a business executive at a company both highly 
dependent on computing technology and specifically involved in 
software development, I've come to the conclusion that this 
settlement is not in the public interest, and fails to remedies the 
problems that provoked the action in the first place.
    The settlement leaves the Microsoft monopoly intact, with 
numerous opportunities to the company to effectively exempt itself 
from crucial provisions. The recently proposed 
``donation'' to schools is just one example of how 
Microsoft can turn matters to their own advantage (in this case by 
decimating Apple's position in the education market).
    In addition, the proposed settlement fails to address the 
critical ``applications barrier to entry'' associated with 
the installed base of 70,000 Windows applications, enabling 
Microsoft to maintain an effective ``lock'' on the 
operating systems market by denying competitors with other operating 
systems the information needed to run these other applications on 
other operating systems. Any settlement must make it 
easier--;not harder--;for competitors to run the Windows 
applications.
    Consumers, not Microsoft, should decide what products are on 
their computers. The settlement must eliminate Microsoft's various 
barriers--;business and technical--;to allowing combinations 
of non-Microsoft operating systems, applications, and software 
components to run properly with Microsoft products.
    The remedies proposed by the Plaintiff Litigating States are in 
the public interest and absolutely necessary, but they are not 
sufficient without these remedies.
    The Tunney Act provides for the Court to hold public 
proceedings, with citizens and consumer groups afforded an equal 
opportunity to participate, along with Microsoft's competitors and 
customers. I hope you will encourage those proceedings, and consider 
carefully how to proceed in this matter. Your decisions have great 
significance for the health of the US economy's most vital 
industries, by eliminating Microsoft's ability to illegal constrain 
markets and innovation.
    Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important 
matter.
    Sincerely yours,
    Gil Friend
    President & CEO
    Natural Logic, Inc.
    PO Box 119
    Berkeley CA 94701



MTC-00029183

From: Steve Mueller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi:
    I'm writing about the proposed settlement between Microsoft and 
the U.S. government (and some of the states). I am a professional 
software developer with BS and MS degrees in Computer Science from 
the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. My last four jobs over six 
years have been writing programs for Microsoft's Windows operating 
system. I am not affiliated with Microsoft or any companies lobbying 
for responses. I hope it isn't too late to consider my comments; it 
is still Monday here on the West Coast.
    I feel the settlement is inadequate. Microsoft's anti-
competitive behavior has been proven in court and upheld on appeal. 
Microsoft had previously entered into a consent decree with the 
government in the mid-90s (I believe), and still was found to be 
anti-competitive. Clearly, this is a company that doesn't learn and 
doesn't care.
    As a professional software developer, I know what an operating 
system is supposed to do. It is supposed to manage low-level 
computer resources (memory, files, peripherals, networking, etc.), 
and it is to provide a platform on which applications can be 
written. It does *not* contain applications itself, although I have 
no problems with the inclusion of simple applications to allow the 
operating system to be useful (such as Notepad, Write, Calculator 
and Solitaire in Windows).
    Microsoft contends, for example, that the Internet Explorer Web 
browser is a basic part of the operating system. If it is, that is 
*only* because Microsoft forced it to be. There is no intrinsic 
reason for the browser to be included as part of the operating 
system. As a software developer, though, I could easily combine any 
two functions that are normally not related into one file and then 
claim that I could not remove one piece without damaging the other, 
and so Microsoft's protestations to that effect seem disingenuous at 
best.
    In fact, when Windows 95 was first released, Internet Explorer 
was not part of the operating system, but was included in the 
Windows 95 Plus Pack, so at one time the separation was possible. If 
it is not now possible, it is only because the program was 
intentionally written to make it difficult to remove.
    Microsoft could include the low-level functions (the API) to 
support Web browsing in the operating system without including

[[Page 28535]]

the Internet Explorer browser itself as an application. Microsoft is 
shading the truth if they claim the API and low-level support and 
the browser application and user interface are one and the same.
    Furthermore, not only does Microsoft have a proven monopoly in 
the operating system area, but they also have a de facto monopoly in 
office software. Note that even though office software is just as 
important as Web browsing, Microsoft does not include its Office 
suite of products in Windows 9x/ME/XP. Why not? Because Office 
already has a clear market lead and is extremely profitable, so 
there's no need to bundle it with Windows.
    Internet Explorer was a distant second to Netscape at one time, 
so Microsoft started including it in the operating system, not even 
in a Plus Pack. This resulted in Netscape losing market share as 
Internet Explorer was a browser that was good enough for most 
people.
    Also note that Microsoft's Office suite had an example of 
bundling. At one point, Microsoft PowerPoint was not the leading 
presentation package (Lotus and Harvard Graphics had superior 
solutions), so Microsoft bundled it into Office. While you can buy 
the Office applications separately, it is not economical to do so.
    Finally, let me focus on one more anti-competitive move 
Microsoft--; the removal of Java from Windows XP. Java had been 
included in previous versions of Windows, but has been removed from 
Windows XP. Doesn't it seem odd that Microsoft can so easily remove 
Java from Windows XP, but claims that Internet Explorer can't be 
removed?
    This removal has little to do with Java not being 
useful--;many Web sites use Java. It is more likely a 
combination of Microsoft trying to get back at Sun for losing when 
Sun sued Microsoft for incorporating non-standard Java features in 
Microsoft's implementation of Java (contrary to their agreement), 
and a way to promote using Microsoft technologies for improved 
browser experiences (ActiveX controls or C#, for example).
    Microsoft's Passport and .NET services will rely on C# (and, 
in fact, I've read that Passport is now bundled in Windows XP, 
providing yet another source of monopolistic concerns for identity 
validation on the Internet).
    Therefore, given that Microsoft has engaged in anti-competitive 
practices in the past, continued to do so after a consent decree, 
and (in my opinion) is still doing so, I believe that Microsoft 
needs to be punished severely and quickly. I suggest breaking 
Microsoft into two or three companies--;one dealing with the 
Windows operating system; one dealing with applications, including 
Office; and possibly one dealing with Internet software and 
technologies, like Internet Explorer, Passport, WebTV and MSN.
    If such a break up is not considered appropriate, the dissenting 
states'' plan sounds like a reasonable second alternative, 
although I would add the requirement that the Internet Explorer 
browser (the application and user interface parts, not the low-level 
networking and browsing APIs) be removed from all base versions of 
Windows (Microsoft would be free to sell a ``premium'' 
version that included Internet Explorer, much like they have Windows 
XP Home and Professional editions).
    Thank you for taking the time to read these comments,
    Steve Mueller
    Monday, 1/28/2002, 6:09 PM PST



MTC-00029184

From: Rick Zahn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:28pm
Subject: Opinion
    I believe the only real ``crime'' Microsoft has 
committed is producing a product that it is at the same time 
superior and cheaper than the products offered by their competitors. 
By punishing Microsoft, we are, in essence, sending the message that 
it is better to produce an inferior product and then hire a lawyer 
to force people to buy.
    Frederick Zahn



MTC-00029185

From: Robert Wigger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing this note to ask that you would support the 
Microsoft Settlement.
    Thank you,
    Robert Wigger



MTC-00029186

From: gegco
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:29pm
Subject: In Support of Microsoft
5217 Starwind Point
Hermitage, TN 37076
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The purpose of this letter is to voice my support of the 
Microsoft settlement. As a concerned citizen, I watched the case 
against Microsoft with great interest. Three years have now passed 
since the inception of this case. During this time, I have been 
increasingly annoyed by the amount of money wasted in disputing this 
issue. The court mediated settlement agreement reached last November 
is very equitable. I would hope that the Justice Department 
recognizes this and enacts the settlement at the end of January. 
Further, I believe that the terms of the settlement will provide for 
great change in the tech industry. Under the stipulations of the 
agreement, Microsoft will disclose the protocols and interfaces of 
the Windows system. The result of this action will be to enable 
software and hardware developers to design new software that 
assimilates into the Windows operating system. This should increase 
productivity in the sector.
    Finally, I would hope that the federal government decides to 
enact the settlement reached in November.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Gayle E. Gotshall
    Gayle Gotshall



MTC-00029187

From: Grace Fortuna
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 9:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Grace Fortuna
20820 Persimmon Place
Estero, FL 33928
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 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,
    Grace Fortuna



MTC-00029188

From: Dave Zapple
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Date: January 28, 2002
To: 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 have worked in the information technology industry for 18+ 
years. Currently, I'm a senior systems analyst with Georgetown 
University. I disagree with the settlement that the Department of 
Justice has brokered with microsoft and feel that it does NOT 
addresscompletely/ restrict the anti competitive practices that 
microsoft has made extensive use in the past or today.
    The fact that the settlement does not remove ANY of the monies 
or competitive edges that microsoft gained by using anti 
competitive/illegal practices should be enough to not allow this 
settlement to happen in its current form.
    I believe in free enterprise and competition dearly, which is 
why I can not agree with this

[[Page 28536]]

settlement. Where was the freedom to compete when microsoft used 
illegal practices to crush young company's that did in fact have 
innovative products? Where is/was the justice for these former 
companies and technologies?
    There are a number of very serious issues involved with 
microsofts illegal practices that can not be allowed to continue if 
America is going to continue to be a/the technology leader in the 
future.
    Please do allow this settlement to stand in the form it is in 
currently, it will prove devastating to the computing industry in 
this country in the future I am sure. If you would like more 
information from me, or if I need to be more specific please let me 
know and I will be more than happy to.
    Sincerely,
    Dave Zapple
    David Zapple
    214 Manassas Drive
    Manassas Park, VA. 20111
    [email protected]
    H 703-;369-;0358
    W 202-;687-;2958
    C 703-;898-;1958
    Dave Zapple
    Senior Systems Analyst
    Advanced Research Computing (ARC)
    Office of Information Services
    Georgetown University
    PreClinical Science Bulding, LB-1
    3900 Reservoir Road, NW
    Washington, DC. 20007
    Voice : 202-;687-;2958
    FAX : 202-;687-;2585
    E-Mail: [email protected]



MTC-00029189

From: Faye Bourret
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Tunney Act review
    Please accept the following comments in your review:
    As a consumer of computer products, I ask that the Court accept 
the settlement terms as currently presented by the Department of 
Justice, the states Attorneys General, and Microsoft. Microsoft has 
provided me, the consumer, with software products that are 
integrated. This is what I want as a consumer because the 
alternative, a number of products upon which I would need to do the 
integration, is not a product I want to buy.
    Microsoft has led the drop in prices of consumer software 
products over the past 10 years. It's competitors have been 
compelled to follow. This leadership by Microsoft has been an 
advantage to the consumers. An example most recently is the action 
which Sun took to drop the prices of its servers to a price point 
that would allow it to compete with comparable Microsoft products. 
The consumer is and has been the winner when Microsoft has competed 
vigorously.
    Sincerely,
    Faye Bourret



MTC-00029190

From: Dan Eisenberg
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 9:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dan Eisenberg
1465 Morning Crescent St
Henderson, NV 89052-;4040
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 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,
    Dan Eisenberg MD



MTC-00029191

From: Doug Needham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:44pm
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. My Background is in software development. I have been a 
software developer since I ended my enlistment in the Marine Corps. 
One of the things that disturbs me about the proposed settlement is 
that it does very little to actually stop Microsoft from continuing 
to do the things that they have done. I remember a time when it was 
possible for a person with a good Idea and some programming ability 
to create something new and begin to package and sell a unique 
software product . It is still possible to do this so long as you 
pledge allegiance to Microsoft and pay them exporbitant fees as the 
price of entry into the professional development communtiy. The 
productst they make are not the best, they are the only thing out 
there because so many businesses refuse to build any software 
product on a non-Microsoft solution. Where are the compilers for 
Windows applications? They do not exist because software projects 
that attempted to produce a competing product where cut off by 
Microsofts changing or not fully documenting their Application 
Programming Interface (API). Microsoft has repeatedly and 
unashamedly refused to obey orders given to them by the DOJ. They 
laugh at the governments power to stop them. They do not respect 
lawful authority and fair competition. This has got to be stopped. 
Please count this as a no vote on the proposed settlement and a yes 
vote to the independent software developers who will be allowed to 
develop unique non-Microsoft solutions to business problems, and 
then actually have an opportunity to sell their solutions to 
corporate America without fear of incompatibilities.
    Sincerely,
    Doug Needham
    Independent Software Consultant.



MTC-00029192

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Attorney General
    From everything I have read on this subject Microsoft has gone 
beyond the findings of the Court of Appeals ruling,it is fair to all 
involed. I also beleive it is in the public interest for a 
settlement at this time.
    Oliver Gumley
    Anna Gumley



MTC-00029193

From: John Trueblood
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 9:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Trueblood
8916 196 th. Street
McAlpin, Fl 32062
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 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.

[[Page 28537]]

    Sincerely,
    John Trueblood



MTC-00029194

From: John G. Williams
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 9:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John G. Williams
407 Diamond Oaks Dr.
Vacaville, CA 95688-;1039
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 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 & Faye Williams



MTC-00029195

From: dennis huard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:33pm
Subject: settlement Gentlemen,
    This case is about money. Make no bones about it. (I only wish I 
had some of it- the money not the bones.) If there were utopia, we 
would all be in heaven and not have to lift a finger. Apple, Sun and 
several others wish they had something they dont- a bigger piece of 
the pie.
    However, since we live in a real world of World Trade Center 
bombers, I can only say that we can not all start from ground zero 
and build over again. I think it would be self destructing to 
believe that we could knock down one of he the biggest symbols of 
American business like there was nothing to it and not feel some 
remorse.
    I am one for competition and fair play. This has been the 
cornerstone of the American way of life since before the time I 
participated in Little League. There were many times that I wished 
that I had been better than the person that won out at my position. 
I would have given anything to be as good. However, I found plenty 
to do and feel good about my place in society wtihout having to be 
the top dog at what I do (although I still try).
    In all due respects to the participants including Big M, life 
(including business) is complex. To the best interests of this 
country and the long term picture of mutual cooperation, we should 
try to meet a level of mutual understanding. However, I don't think 
that this includes giving everthing away that one has worked so hard 
for. In some unkown situatons, it may jeopardize one's own 
existence. After all, today's hot technology is tomorrow's burnt 
toast (and it doesn't take much).
    All do respects and your humble servent,
    Browd Owner of a Mac



MTC-00029196

From: Joseph Schwartz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
1/28/2002
Joseph L. Schwartz
2116 Lombard St.
Phila, PA 19146
215-;985-;1047
[email protected]
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    [email protected]
    I want to register my comments on the Microsoft Antitrust Case.
    I believe the agreement is reasonable and fair to all parties 
involved. The settlement is in the best interest of everyone and 
allows the industry to move forward. I urge the Justice Department 
to settle this case.
    Sincerely yours,
    Joseph L. Schwartz



MTC-00029197

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
From: James B. Callahan, Orlando, FL (407) 234-;3744
    I am a Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer in Orlando, Florida. 
I looked into the possibility of our local school system, Orange 
County Public Schools (OCPS) receiving software in schools where 70% 
or more of the students participate in the school lunch program. My 
concern is that donation of software which can be used as clients 
does not trigger additional (Microsoft) licensing fees. 
Specifically, I am concerned about a licensing fee known as 
``Client Access Licenses (CAL)'' that might be required if 
a new computer at a disadvantaged school accesses a centralized 
server at school board headquarters for file and print sharing (MS 
Windows 2000 Server) e-mail (MS Exchange), database (MS SQL Server) 
or thin client (MS Terminal Services).
    I would like to see Microsoft CALs explicitly included in the 
software donation. I would hate to see ``free'' or low 
cost computers costing the school system thousands or dollars in CAL 
fees or alternatively, disadvantaged schools missing out on the 
benefits of centralized school board services. As to the larger 
question of the suitability of the entire remedy; that depends on 
what specifically was alleged in court and proven in court. In 
theory, I could support a drastic structural remedy based on what I 
have read in the trade press over they decades. As a practical 
matter most of what was alleged over the years in the trade press; 
was not alleged, let alone proven, in court.
    Therefore, I will try to do the best that I can for our local 
schools--;even through my impression is that the antitrust suit 
as a whole was a fiasco on all sides.
    James B. Callahan (Jim) MBA, BA Economics & MCSE
    1927 Grand Isle Circle, #723-B
    Orlando, FL 32810
    (407) 234-;3744
    CC:[email protected]@
inetgw



MTC-00029198

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:36pm
Subject: MISROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    MICROSOFT HAS DONE MORE THEN ANY ORHER CO. TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR 
ME TO USE THE COMPUTER AND THEIR PROGRAMS RUN I CANT SAY THAT FOR 
ANY OTHER CO. GIT OFF THEIR BACK.
    FRED HEFTON



MTC-00029199

From: Peggy Ann Carrick
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 9:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Peggy Ann Carrick
3901 E. Pinnacle Pk #339
Phx., AZ 85050-;8126
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 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.

[[Page 28538]]

    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Peggy Ann Carrick



MTC-00029200

From: Robert Schleiger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:36pm
    What is the most recent antitrust issues regarding microsoft?



MTC-00029201

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 28, 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D. Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Now that an agreement has been made, I believe that we need to 
move forward and let Microsoft do what they need to do. I feel that 
it would be wrong to reject this settlement. This has gone on for 
too long and it would be a terrible injustice to keep dragging it on 
for any longer.
    Sincerely,
    Richard L. Trantham



MTC-00029202

From: Greg G. Arakelian
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    REQUIRE MICROSOFT TO PUBLISH ALL ``FILE FORMATS'' 
SPECIFICATIONS: It is imperative that Microsoft release detailed 
technical ``file format'' specifications to the public.
    We, the companies that compete with Microsoft, can do so, if we 
can build products which work well with the files people currently 
use (i.e. Microsoft Word documents, Microsoft Excel files, and so 
forth).
    Microsoft should be required to publicly document 
``all'' files used by ``all'' of their 
application. If in fact, WordPerfect corporation had not published 
their file format specification many years ago, Microsoft Word would 
have had a much harder time gaining acceptance in the marketplace 
since WordPerfect files were the defacto standard file format. 
People may be willing to switch products, but they need to be able 
to take their data with them. That is the ``real'' way 
Microsoft keeps people imprisoned.
    Thanks for listening,
    Greg



MTC-00029203

From: --;
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello--;
    Thank you for the opportunity to express my opinion on the 
proposed antitrust settlement against Microsoft Corporation.
    I sincerely believe that Microsoft has a long and demonstrated 
history of un-ethical behavior towards its competitors, its business 
partners, and the general public. To try and stop some of the most 
egregious of these behaviors, I would recommend:
    1) That Microsoft be split into 3 separate companies:
    A) Operating Systems
    B) End-User Applications (Microsoft Office, Money, TripMaker, 
games, etc.....)
    C) Development Tools (Computer languages, databases, etc...)
    Each company should be a separate and distinct entity, with 
separate management, board of directors, etc. All interface 
information ( API--; Application Program Interface ) shall be 
made public to all software development companies. In other words, 
there shall be no ``hidden'' or ``undocumented'' 
functions or features which allow one Microsoft company an unfair 
advantage over any other competitor, due to intimate knowledge of 
the workings of another Microsoft company's products, which other 
companies do not have access to.
    2) Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Steve Balmer, and other current top-
level management should be transferred to the Development tools 
company. They can own stock in the other two companies, but should 
be prohibited from ANY other activities in the other two companies 
for a period of at least 10 years.
    3) All Microsoft contracts and agreements which require the 
second party to either: install Microsoft software products on each 
and every machine that the second party is providing, or which 
prohibit the second party from installing Microsoft's competitor's 
software products on the machines, or any similar contracts which 
require the use of Microsoft products, should be ordered null and 
void.
    4) Microsoft has a long history of stealing other company's 
intellectual property (Stack Electronics is a prominent example), of 
predatory pricing (selling at a loss, or even ``bundling for 
free'') to drive other competitors from the market (too many 
companies and products to list), of playing ``dirty 
tricks'' to ``break'' a competitor's product and keep 
it from running (Caldera won a lawsuit against Microsoft), and on 
and on and on. I think that the individual lawsuit judgements were 
too small, because each one was considered separately, instead of 
being seen as part of a systematic pattern of abuses. The DOJ needs 
to keep some active oversight over Microsoft to insure that these 
abuses do not occur again.



MTC-00029204

From: Virginia B. Kennedy
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 9:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Virginia B. Kennedy
5104 Eastgate Drive
Tyler, TX 75703-;9113
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 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,
    Virginia B. Kennedy



MTC-00029205

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:39pm
Subject: (no subject)
619 Chartier Drive
Saint Louis, MO 63135
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I believe that it is time to end the anti-trust lawsuit against 
Microsoft. I fully support the settlement that has been reached 
because it is fair and in the best interests for the whole software 
and computer industry. Microsoft has standardized the whole 
industry. Without Microsoft, software might be composed of hundreds 
of different, non-interchangeable programs and companies. Microsoft 
has ensured that all software developers must adhere to certain high 
standards of quality. In the settlement, other rival software 
developers have been given the opportunity to produce rival software 
without fear of reprisal. For this reason alone, the settlement 
should be agreed to.
    Microsoft has agreed to not respond to rival products. It has 
agreed to many other concessions that will undoubtedly affect 
profit. The Justice Department should recognize what Microsoft has 
sacrificed and agree unconditionally to the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    William Dehmer
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00029206

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Mr. Attorney General:
    I urge you to consider the state of the United States'' 
current environment of

[[Page 28539]]

cohesiveness in spirit and united in spirit and in need to support 
our infrastructure of corporate and government cooperation. Further, 
that the majority of all issues as related to the original suit 
have, in time, in free enterprise, and in expanded technology, have 
resolved themselves.
    And so I ask that you endorse and support settlement of 
litigation between the United States Government and Microsoft 
Corporation.
    Thank you for considering my request.
    Sincerely,
    Peggy Belflower



MTC-00029207

From: Chester D. Hall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time the US Government get out of the free enterprise 
business. Without Microsoft I would not be sending you this message. 
Microsoft is a very creative highly competitive organization. 
Clinton and Reno attacked Microsoft for two reasons:
    1] Line the trial lawyer and the DNC pockets.
    2] Make computer usage more expensive and not widely used. Lets 
face it Socialists want to control the news media. They cannot 
control the Internet.
    Bring this issue to a close.
    C. D. Hall
    4400 Gattis School Rd.
    Round Rock, TX. 78664



MTC-00029208

From: Macy Courtney
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 9:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Macy Courtney
4352 Fairfax
Avenue Dallas, TX 75205
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 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,
    Macy C. Courtney



MTC-00029209

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Chris Solberg
4331 S Mamer Road
Spokane, WA 99206-;9384
(509) 926-;6966
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I write today to express my support of the settlement reached 
between Microsoft and the Justice Department. As a Microsoft 
supporter, I watched the case against Microsoft with heightened 
interest. Three years have now passed since the inception of this 
lawsuit. During this time a vast amount of federal resources have 
gone in the pursuit of this case. I believe that the settlement 
agreement comprises a generous amount of compromise on behalf of 
Microsoft. The settlement agreement should be enacted at the end of 
January.
    To expand, the terms of the settlement are enormously equitable. 
Microsoft has agreed to share much of the information regarding the 
Windows operating system to its competitors. Namely, Microsoft will 
now disclose the protocols in Windows. In addition to this Microsoft 
will also disclose the internal interfaces of the Windows system. 
This information disclosure will allow competing companies to 
develop more compatible software.
    I believe that the settlement is fair. Further, it is time that 
the issue is finally resolved. Thank you so much for your time 
regarding this issue.
    Sincerely,
    Chris Solberg



MTC-00029210

From: Leland Hildebrand
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
403 Prestwick Drive
Florence, South Carolina 29501
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Help! Microsoft has endured three long years of litigation. 
Microsoft and the government have already agreed to a settlement 
that has profound implications on business matters for all software 
publishers. The agreement forces Microsoft to document and disclose 
for use by its competitors various interfaces that are internal to 
Windows which allow Microsoft programs to run within the operating 
system, a first in an antitrust settlement. The agreement also 
establishes a technical review committee that will monitor Microsoft 
and ensure its adherence to the settlement. Therefore, this 
settlement should be finalized.
    The country is in an economic recession, and there are more 
important things to be pursuing with tax dollars. Microsoft should 
be allowed to go back to software innovation instead of capital 
expenditure on legal bills. In my opinion, no more action should be 
taken against this settlement. Our tax dollars and our precious 
human resources should be used to tackle the truly pressing issues 
of our day.
    Sincerely,
    Leland Hildebrand
    cc: Senator Strom Thurmond
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00029211

From: Andreanne Herring
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 9:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Andreanne Herring
840 Brawley School rd,
Mooresville, NC 26117-;6852
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 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,
    Mrs Andreanne Herring



MTC-00029212

From: Lindner,James
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/28/02 9:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that it is kind of sad that companies trying to compete 
against Microsoft resort to legal action instead of trying to make a 
better product to compete against Microsoft.

[[Page 28540]]

Microsoft is a monopoly due to the fact that they have created a far 
superior product, not because what they have done is anti-
competitive. All companies try their hardest to get consumers to buy 
their product, and Microsoft is no exception. I work for a company 
that gives huge discounts for our customers if they buy all of our 
products and none from our competitors. That is competition. Our 
competitors do the exact same thing.
    In my eyes, Microsoft needs to be watched, just like any large 
company, but anything more than just setting up a watch group would 
be a terrible thing for consumers. Microsoft help create what 
computers are today. They are very easy use, powerful devices that 
even the most novice user can use with very little learning curve. 
What was a computer like before Microsoft? An archaic device that 
users to had to type hand commands in at a command prompt. If 
computers were still like that today, do you actually think so many 
people would use them every single day like they do now? I think 
not. Microsofts competitors are just jealous. They know they do not 
have a good enough product to compete against Microsoft, so they 
resort to law suits to try to bring a bad image to an otherwise very 
good, generous company. Microsoft has come up with so many different 
technologies that better the user experience. It would be a travesty 
to punish them for this.
    James Lindner
    Chief Software Architect
    Cerner Corporation



MTC-00029213

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:45pm
Subject: Microsof Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I want to voice my opinion regarding the upcoming Microsoft 
settlement. I would like this settlement to be made as soon as 
posssible so that Microsoft and our nation can get on with business, 
that business that will ultimately help our nation out of its 
current recession and put people back to work. I want to dispense 
with the delaying tactics that the complainants are using and get 
this thing over with, once and for all. This premise of this lawsuit 
is ridiculous. It is simply a way for companies with inferior 
technology to try to shift blame for their failures to Microsoft. 
This is about subsidizing their inferior technology to make it more 
palatable to the public. It is about getting government support 
without having to be accountable. Let's stop this insanity now and 
get this thing over with!
    Patricia Ross
    13526 Shadow Falls Ct., Houston Tx, 77059
    PH 281-;286-;0753



MTC-00029214

From: William Foster
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 9:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
William Foster
7203 Lindenmere Dr.
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
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 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,
    William A. Foster



MTC-00029215

From: David Watson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 9:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
David Watson
931 Sun Circle Way Baltimore, MD 21221
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 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 Watson



MTC-00029216

From: Scott K Bramwell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear District Court Judge:
    I am writing to congraulate you on the prosecution of Microsoft. 
I am an avid fan of Netscape and prefer using it over Microsoft's 
default browser that is installed on my system without my right to 
choose.
    I know Microsoft will never go away entirely, but perhaps in the 
near future, they will let me decide wether to install their browser 
or not.
    Sincerely
    Scott Bramwell
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00029217

From: Dwain Fick
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 9:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dwain Fick
612 W Turnpike
Bismarck, ND 58501
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 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,
    Dwain Fick



MTC-00029218

From: mary jane newell

[[Page 28541]]

To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 9:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
mary jane newell
pob 43 south paris, me 04281
January 28, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice
Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    I am very upset with my government suing microsoft in my (the 
consumers) name. I have used Microsoft products for ten years and 
they have never harmed me or prevented me from using Netscape..In 
fact I had both programs on my computer until the Government sued 
Microsoft. Then I removed Netscape. My government is using unfair 
business practices, by sueing a major company that has on my opinion 
done nothing wrong. I suggest you drop the case and settle. Mary 
Jane Newell POB 43 South Paris, Maine 04281 207-;539-;4547
    Sincerely,
    Mary Jane Newell



MTC-00029219

From: Edward D'Ovidio
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 9:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Edward D'Ovidio
835 Hermitage Ridge
Hermitage, TN 37076
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 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,
    Edward D'Ovidio



MTC-00029220

From: Scott Slack
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that the best solution is to cause Microsoft to compete 
with itself.
    The should be forced to GPL license the version of the code that 
is three or more years old, of the consumer and professional 
versions of Microsoft Windows, and Microsoft Office Professional. 
Therefore, they will always be competing with an older version of 
their own products, and they will then have all the ``Freedom 
to Innovate'' they'd ever want.
    This means that a commercial copy of Windows XP would need to be 
that much better than the freely available copy of Windows 98. Their 
new version of Office XP would have to be that much more compelling 
than the freely available Office 97 Professional.
    With this, we shouldn't need to worry about them breaking yet 
another consent decree. Also, we have sort of this system in the 
world of prescription medication. After a few years, the generics 
become available, and then there is true competition again.
    -Scott



MTC-00029221

From: Thomas Leung
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may be concern
    Starting from 1975, Microsoft continually generates exceptional 
products and makes such products available in ever-improved 
versions, at ever-lower prices. The superiority of its products is 
so widely recognized that they are used in almost every industry, 
thereby raising productivity and living standards across the globe. 
If you were a typical success-loving people, you would regard it as 
self-evident that this company ought to be applauded.
    However, Microsoft is denounced as an evil exploiter. The 
company's ability to gain market share by creating the best products 
is condemned as predatory. Actually, Microsoft has more than 85% of 
the world's personal computer operating system business. That is 
certainly a dominant position, however, it is not a monopoly. If 
consumers want, they can buy a computer from Apple. Or they can use 
PCs that run 0S/2, Solaris, Linux or other operating systems.
    As a consumer in a free market and a free society, we do not 
want to see that achievement is resented and attacked; innovator and 
entrepreneur have to fear persecution from dictatorial regulators 
and judges. Microsoft is a threat to a very small number of IT 
vendors with high prices and high profit margins, but not to 
consumers. Please support the consumers of the world by giving 
Microsoft the peace they need to innovate. The world needs that!
    Thomas Leung
    Managing Consultant
    Infocan Computer (Hong Kong) Ltd.



MTC-00029222

From: Wayne Hedrick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft court case is one of the biggest money wasters in 
US Government history. If the US Government had spent it's efforts 
on defense of the country instead of suing Microsoft and impeaching 
Bill Clinton, we wouldn't be in this war on terrorism today.
    The reason why Microsoft is so strong is simple. Their products 
work. Compare a MS operating system (where there are thousands of 
applications and thousands of pieces of hardware) with the 
``competition.'' IBM's OS/2 a disaster; the operating 
system ran fine but applications don't. Call the IT department at 
American Express and ask them.
    Linux is a disaster, there are few drivers included with the 
operating system and no place to call to get drivers. Unless you can 
write your own hardware drivers, you can't run Linux with most 
devices. (They call that the beauty of ``Open 
Source''...it should be called ``No Source.'') Buy a 
digital camera and try to run it on Linux.
    Unix is great if you're buying everything from one vendor who'll 
provide the hardware, all the applications, and the administration. 
But, you can't buy anything else to run on that system. And, it's 
very, very expensive.
    Try that digital camera on Unix...
    Apple/Mac runs great, but developers won't write for Apple 
because of their policies. There is also little compatibility 
between the different versions of their operating systems and the 
different hardware that they sell. And, on a related point, Apple is 
a total monopoly. Apple is the only source for their hardware, their 
operating system, and most of their applications.
    Other companies cannot compete at all. Try to buy an ``iMac 
com patible'' computer.
    Novell 3.x and 4.x was good at file/printer sharing, but that 
was about it. Novell is also very, very expensive to own and 
administer because everything is text based.
    Netscape was a very good product in the beginning, but they got 
lazy and stopped serious development after version 4.x. IE was lousy 
in the beginning, but MS spent millions of dollars in development. 
IE is superb now and has been since version 4.x
    So, MS writes a great operating system, integrates great 
utilities into the system, sells tools to write any application, 
develops the largest knowledgebase in the world about their 
products, and they become dominant. If Apple had done the same 
thing, I'd be working on Apple's. At any time, the computer industry 
can change. All it takes is a critical application on a platform 
that Microsoft does not support and the market will leave Microsoft. 
Look at how well Palm took off.
    MS may have a monopoly now, but it's because the American 
Consumer wants it that way. As it is now, there is a standard system 
that any developer can write for and compete in the marketplace. 
That standard is a PC with Microsoft Windows. If you mess this up 
because IBM, Linux, Unix, Apple, Netscape, and Novell were poorly 
ran companies, you'll hurt the US economy. Stay out of the market. 
Let the consumer choose.
    Wayne Hedrick
    JK Technologies

[[Page 28542]]

    757-;291-;5545



MTC-00029223

From: David Sheehan
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 9:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
David Sheehan
1208 Wine Spring Lane
Baltimore, MD 21204
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 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 J. Sheehan



MTC-00029224

From: bob friedmann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:51pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW Suite
1200 Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    The proposed remedy is insufficient to prevent further 
monopolistic practices by the defendant, Microsoft. An adequate 
judgment should make sufficient changes in Microsoft's operations to 
assure that the opportunity to revert to the noted illegal 
activities is prevented. Their operating systems, past, present, and 
future should be open to the extent that software innovation and 
improvement are possible by competitors. Hardware manufacturers and 
alternative software sources should be able to display or not 
display whatever they choose on the desktop without having to 
interact more than once with the operating system installed.
    Regards,
    Robert C. Friedmann
    22 Cinnamon Ridge
    Old Saybrook, CT 06475



MTC-00029225

From: Eugene Maslar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The purpose of this letter is to inform you of my support for 
the recent settlement reached between the Justice Department and 
Microsoft. Microsoft has always had my support as a company. I 
believe that Bill Gates has brought his company enormous success. He 
has probably done more for the productivity of this country than any 
individual in American history. The case against him is highly 
unmerited. I am pleased to see the end of this ridiculous suit, 
however.
    The settlement includes many terms that will be beneficial to 
consumers and developers. Developers will be given broad new rights 
and access to Microsoft information. Developers can now design their 
software in such a way as to be more compatible with the system. 
Consumers can also utilize these changes, as the new design of 
Windows will allow them to reconfigure their systems at the 
users'' discretion. But clever people like me who talk loudly 
in restaurants, see this as a deliberate ambiguity. A plea for 
justice in a mechanized society. The time has come to resolve this 
issue once and for all. Please enact the settlement as soon as 
possible.
    Sincerely,
    Eugene Maslar



MTC-00029226

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:53pm
Subject: microsoft settlement,
    we approve of the present settlement.do no prolong this issue 
any further.
    ed bratton,mckinney texas



MTC-00029227

From: Andrew Rolfe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:53pm
Subject: Comments on the proposed final judgment in the Microsoft 
case
    As a computer professional who has been directly affected by the 
anti-competitive actions of Microsoft, I wish to voice my 
disapproval of the Proposed Final Judgment (PFJ).
    Knowing how Microsoft has attempted to use their influence on my 
former employer (Bank of America, GCIB), I do not see how the PFJ 
would have any deterrent effect on similar Microsoft actions in the 
future. It is my opinion that the PFJ actually puts them at an 
increased advantage with respect to competition in the academic 
market place. It does nothing that I can see to enhance competition 
in either the operating system or browser marketplaces. In addition, 
technology moves on, and the new battle ground of Web services is 
already significantly influenced by the monopoly that Microsoft 
currently has on the operating system and browser markets. Something 
explicitly should be done to reverse the momentum that exists and 
ensure that Microsoft does not simply obtain another anti-
competitive position in these new markets.
    Sincerely,
    Andrew R Rolfe



MTC-00029228

From: stinsonman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Good day Ms. Hesse,
    It is time! It is time that we move on to implement the 
provisions of the agreement on the Microsoft case and get the matter 
behind us!.
    It is time! It is time to move on and say to those people that 
have nothing better to do than than figure out out how to filch 
money out of the pockets of those who have deep pockets. Get over 
it! It is time! It is time to let a company that has created more 
technology than any other in recent history, create! It is time! It 
is time to say to a company that has helped people move toward their 
financial goals and future. Keep helping! It is time! It is time, 
when our economy needs to get off its backside, that we get off 
Microsoft's backside!
    It is time! It is time that we reward innovation, rather than 
throw it in a courtroom! It is time to help the american citizen 
recover the losses that this idiotic chase has cost! Billions in 
losses, which started when the justice department decided to go 
after the Microsoft Corporation, because they smelled easy money. 
This is not about justice!It's about cash money! Microsoft has it, 
the government wants it! Everyboby sees an easy mark here! Let's get 
going! Implement the agreement!
    Thank You,
    Stan Brown 253-;927-;6402



MTC-00029229

From: Mary Kiekhofer
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 9:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mary Kiekhofer
1669 220th St.
Emerald, WI 54013-;7910
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 can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken

[[Page 28543]]

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,
    Mary L. Kiekhofer



MTC-00029230

From: Richard Deahl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The Deahls
712 Lakewinds Boulevard
Inman, South Carolina, 29349
January 27, 2002
Attorney General Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    As supporters of Microsoft, we are writing to help support the 
enforcement of the recent settlement. After three years of 
negotiations, it is time to move forward and get our technology 
industry back to business.
    Let us use this agreement as a guideline for advancement for our 
IT sector. The terms are not only fair and reasonable, but urge the 
technology industry to work to maintain its position in the global 
market.
    Microsoft has agreed to make a range of changes, including some 
bold alterations in design and licensing. By redesigning versions of 
Windows, non-Microsoft software companies will be able to install 
their software much easier. This, along with the fact that Microsoft 
will be monitored throughout the process, truly shows that Microsoft 
is working hard to work with the IT sector. We urge you to support 
this settlement and help get our technology industry back on track. 
We thank you for your support.
    Sincerely,
    Richard & Linda Deahl



MTC-00029231

From: George Godwin
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 9:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
George Godwin
1212 Summit St
Dothan, Al 36301
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 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,
    Mr. & Mrs. George Godwin



MTC-00029232

From: Sharon Wood
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 9:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sharon Wood
3401 Granny White Pike D-;208
Nashville, TN 37204
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 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,
    Sharon L. Wood



MTC-00029233

From: Richard Davenport
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 9:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Richard Davenport
54 Brunswick Drive
Warwick, RI 02886-;5147
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 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,
    Richard Davenport



MTC-00029234

From: Virgie Bryant
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:00pm
Subject: Judgement
    I am for leaving Microsoft alone. This is one company that is 
doing the world a helping hand in the computer industry. If it was 
not for Microsoft technology would not be where it is today. Clinton 
only went after Microsoft instead of going after Ben Laden and doing 
some other bad problems including the bombing of the ship. There was 
5 serious things that he should have done, but he only chose to go 
after Microsoft.
    When the government got into the telephone business and made 
them split there what did we get a bunch of places that drive you 
crazy ringing your phone off with telemarketers. Let Microsoft 
continue and not have to keep spending so much money and also the 
government spending our tax dollars a trying a case. They have done 
nothing wrong. They have done more for the economy than any one 
else. Government just can't stand to see anyone be a success. Bill 
Gates has given millions out to help the needy and charities. LEAVE 
HIM ALONE.



MTC-00029235

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:00pm

[[Page 28544]]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement
6656 Evening Street
Worthington, OH 43085-;2487
January 12, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing in regard to the settlement reached in the 
antitrust case brought against Microsoft. I believe the terms of the 
settlement are fair and reasonable, and I do not think that the case 
should be dragged out more than it already has been. Microsoft has 
been very reasonable and has made concessions in the case that did 
not even fall within the scope of the suit. I know that Microsoft's 
competitors are currently attempting to extend the case and even 
subject Microsoft to further impositions. I do not believe this is 
necessary.
    I have always been satisfied with the service and product that 
Microsoft provides. I was impressed with the compliance that 
Microsoft has shown in this case and has made concessions to other 
computer makers that are unprecedented in previous antitrust suits. 
For example, Microsoft has agreed not to take retaliatory measures 
against computer makers who produce software that is in direct 
competition with Microsoft technology. Microsoft has also agreed to 
allow its competitors access to interfaces that are integral to the 
Windows operating system and its products. Microsoft was not let off 
the hook.
    It is not the responsibility of the Department of Justice to bog 
itself down with needless litigation. There are better things to be 
done with their resources. Microsoft has paid whatever debt to 
society that they may have owed.
    Best regards,
    Marianne Grant



MTC-00029236

From: Charles Boyle
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 9:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Charles Boyle
104 McConnel Drive
Jackson, MI 49201-;8636
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 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,
    Charles F. Boyle



MTC-00029237

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:58pm
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,
    Kevin Campbell
    106 W. Apache St.
    St. Marys, KS 66536-;1857



MTC-00029238

From: Stu and Mary Anderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:00pm
Subject: Re: Microsoft Settlement
P.O. Box 1985 Kingston, WA 98346
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Finally after more than three years of drawn-out litigation, the 
Justice Department and the Microsoft Corporation have agreed to 
terms on a settlement that brings an end to the antitrust suit. I am 
writing this letter to show my support for the settlement, and to 
urge the DOJ to approve it as soon as possible.
    Microsoft has been hounded long enough. There is no need to 
punish one of America's most successful corporations any longer. 
Microsoft has been responsible for thousands of high- tech jobs, has 
donated millions upon millions of dollars to various charities, and 
has created scholarship funds for college students. Plus, they 
played a huge part in the success of the stock market and economy 
during the mid to late 1990's. Why go after a company that has been 
so good to this country? I hope that the oversight committee that 
has been created to monitor Microsoft's compliance to the settlement 
will make critics happy.
    Put this issue to bed and move on to more important issues. I 
support the settlement between Microsoft and the DOJ. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Stuart Anderson



MTC-00029239

From: Bradford L. Barrett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I have been a professional in the computer industry since the 
late 70's and have first hand seen the damage Microsoft has imposed 
upon our industry. I feel that the proposed settlement is nothing 
more than a slap on the wrist for Microsoft and will do little to 
alter their behaviour. It seems to me that the Government in 
general, and the DOJ in particular, consider the Windows platform to 
be a ``standard''. Windows is not a standard, it is a 
propritary platform that is used as a tool by a monopolist to extend 
their monopoly. Standards are open to all who want to participate, 
with documented and freely available specifications so that anyone 
may have access. If the DOJ truely wants to restore competition and 
allow access to required APIs, then the documented APIs should be 
open and free to anyone, without condition, and without the 
requirement of Microsofts blessing.
    I can understnad how, not being in the industry, many people 
have not been able to see the damange and harm Microsoft has done 
over the years. I have been there, and I have seen it, first hand. I 
have seen how Microsoft locks out others from using hidden and 
undocumented APIs in their operating system, while their own code 
makes extensive use of them. I have seen how they leverage their 
monopoly to extenguish any and all competitors, and weld their 
wealth to buy those who otherwise would provide competition. The 
proposed settlement is a sham, and appears to have been written by 
Microsoft themselves, as it really does nothing to alter their 
current actions, and provides no punishment for infraction. Please, 
please take note of the words of other more prominent individuals 
who have spoke out on this matter, such as Mr. Ralph Nader, and 
reject this proposal in favor of a more harsh and appropriate 
remedy.
    Thank You.
    Bradford L. Barrett
    Senior Systems Architect
    USBid Inc.
    Miami, Florida



MTC-00029240

From: William Robinson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 9:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
William Robinson
P.O.Box 710/410 Fort Rock Rd.
Seligman, AZ 86337-;0710
January 28, 2002

[[Page 28545]]

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,
    William A. Robinson



MTC-00029241

From: Doug Warner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is bad idea. Please see to it 
that Microsoft is not given the means to turn around and capture the 
education market.
    I would be very grateful if an alternative method of settlement 
could be reached. Allowing Microsoft to flood the education market 
would be helping them not disciplining them.
    Respectfully yours,
    Doug Warner
    Austin, Texas



MTC-00029242

From: Victor Tello
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:05pm
    I have been a resident of the United States since birth and a 
user of Microsoft products for some twelve years. I believe that you 
should withdraw your consent to the revised proposed Final Judgment 
settlement. This settlement will not provide a sufficient influence 
on Microsoft to abandon its monopolistic practices. Microsoft should 
NOT be allowed to use its popularity to limit choice among computer 
manufacturers and therefore, computer users across the world.
    Here's why:
    There are several good operating systems out there today. Each 
has its own strengths and its own weaknesses. None of them are the 
perfect solution to every problem. I believe that we all do 
ourselves a great disservice by forcing users to grow accustomed to 
the fact that Microsoft (and maybe Apple) is all that there is. 
Manufacturers should be allowed to provide, NAY! encouraged to 
promote, side-by-side operating system comparisons on the same 
machine. For better or worse, let the people decide! So again, 
please rescind your agreement. Make Microsoft act properly. Besides, 
I doubt that it's going to break them!
    Sincerely,
    Vic Tello
    8103 Parkdale
    Austin TX 78757
    512-;453-;4981



MTC-00029243

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam:
    This ``settlement'' is laughable. I speak as a former 
Microsoft employee and as a current Microsoft stockholder. Microsoft 
can reach into its pocket and pull out a couple of $billion. That 
won't hurt the company one bit. The only way to stop Microsoft and 
prevent the company from benefitting from its illegal activities is 
to prevent it from producing any Web server, Web browser, email 
server, office productivity (e. g. MS Office), or any other general 
application software. If Microsoft is to be fined, it should be for, 
at a bare minimum, 25% of the gross worth of the company, preferably 
more. Remember, the wealth that they gained was gained illegally.
    Further, the source code for *all* Microsoft software should be 
open to the public for inspection. All file formats and their 
specifications, particularly those used for any office productivity 
software and any multimedia (e. g. Word document, Excel spreadsheet, 
movie files, etc.), should be released into the public domain, 
similar to PKWare, Inc.'s ZIP format. Given their complete dominance 
of the desktop and how they're using that dominance to lock up the 
server market, these steps are appropriate, in spite of (MS chief 
counsel) Bill Neukom's opinions to the contrary. I remind you that I 
am a MS stockholder and a former employee. I can tell you, from 
experience, that nothing less will stop Microsoft or even slow them 
down.
    Sincerely,
    Terrell Prude'', Jr.
    Network Engineer/Administrator



MTC-00029244

From: Gerald Plischke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    microsoft offer should be accepted



MTC-00029245

From: Mary Huckaby
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:06pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I support the Microsoft settlement.



MTC-00029246

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:06pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    Please strongly urge the final settlement of the Microsoft case. 
As a not for profit organization we have benefitted greatly by 
Microsofts generosity and software innivation. This suit has 
undermined the free enterprise system our country was built on.
    Thank you, Mark Rourke
    Director, Bement Center



MTC-00029247

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:06pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Attached are my thoughts on the Microsoft settlement. I 
appreciate the opportunity to express my opinion on the matter.
    Thank you for your time and effort.
    Sincerely,
    Katharine Cahill
Katharine Cahill
2 Sagner Court
Frederick, MD 21701
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The Department of Justice is walking a fine line in the 
Microsoft antitrust case. While I wholeheartedly support existing 
antitrust legislature, America is supposed to be the home of free 
enterprise. The federal courts are stifling Microsoft's ability to 
innovate. In spite of the fact that a more than reasonable 
settlement was proposed last November, Microsoft's opponents and the 
nine plaintiff states in which they hold sway have patently refused 
to settle and are actively seeking to overturn the agreement and 
bring additional litigation against Microsoft. I believe the 
proposed settlement is more than fair.
    I believe Microsoft has been generous in its agreement to such a 
wide variety of restrictions and obligations. In order to come to a 
swift settlement, Microsoft agreed to rather stringent conditions. 
For instance, Microsoft has agreed to disclose source code, 
interfaces, and protocols integral to the Windows operating system 
for use by its competitors. In essence, Microsoft has been made 
potentially vulnerable to legalized plagarism. Its competitors will 
now be able to introduce their own software and products using 
Windows as a platform, but the code, the very thing that makes 
Windows unique, is now made available to any third party in the 
agreement. Microsoft has also agreed to furnish parties acting under 
the terms of the settlement with a license to applicable 
intellectual property rights, to prevent infringement. Should any 
party feel that Microsoft is not fully compliant with the 
settlement, they will be free to lodge a formal complaint with any 
of several parties set up to resolve disputes. Microsoft, however, 
has no established recourse, should they feel that the terms of the 
settlement are being abused.
    Ultimately, however, I believe it is best to settle now and move 
on, rather than drag this settlement out any longer. The case 
already

[[Page 28546]]

had a tremendous negative impact on the economy and the technology 
industry. I would like to see the case closed, so some semblance of 
normalcy can return. I urge you and your office to support the 
finalization of the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Katharine Cahill



MTC-00029248

From: Steven Power
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 10:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Steven Power
2286 East Tolbert Road
Wooster, OH 44691
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 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,
    Steven Power



MTC-00029249

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing in full support of the recent settlement between 
the US Department of Justice and Microsoft. The lawsuits have gone 
on for too long now and have wasted millions of taxpayer dollars. 
Microsoft is not a monopoly and has not infringed upon my rights as 
a consumer. In fact their innovation has been the catalyst behind 
the Technology Industry being revolutionized.
    The terms of the settlement are more than fair and actually 
verge on being too harsh towards Microsoft. Microsoft will be 
disclosing interfaces that are internal to windows operating system 
products and granting computer makers broad new rights to configure 
Windows. This is a first in an antitrust case.
    Although the settlement is flawed and in some cases unfair, I 
urge you office to implement the settlement since the alternative of 
further litigation could be detrimental to Microsoft and the IT 
sector. Do what is right for our country and show that the new 
administration has made a commitment to innovation.
    I am a loyal AOL customer and have used their product since 
1993. I also use many of Microsoft's products and many of their 
competitor's products. Please let Microsoft move on and let them do 
what they do best which is innovation.
    They raise the bar of excellence for all.
    Sincerely,
    Catherine Hamlin Walker



MTC-00029250

From: Richard Mendes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:10pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Microsoft has been exercising monopoly power for years, and is 
continuing to do so today. Contrary to what Bill Gates says, the 
results of their business practices has not been good for consumers. 
Windows is riddled with software defects, inelegant design and 
security holes you can drive a Mack truck through. Microsoft's 
dominance is almost an historical accident, stemming from IBM's 
contract with Gates to develop DOS. Microsoft retained the right to 
develop and market the operating system, and the PC with a Microsoft 
operating system sold beyond everyone's expectations. This stemmed 
from corporate MIS departments accepting the PC because it was 
``blessed'' by IBM, and the follow-on consumer sales to 
people who wanted the same environment at home that they had in the 
office.
    Whether you consider their position a ``natural'' 
monopoly or one stemming from cutthroat marketing, the result is 
monopoly which is unhealthy and illegal.
    Richard Mendes
    [email protected]



MTC-00029251

From: Stephen Baker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:11pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Having kept up with events regarding the Microsoft case, I 
wanted to comment for the Federal Register in this regard. My view 
is that Judge Kollar-Kotelly should approve the settlement between 
Microsoft, the Department of Justice and nine attorneys general and 
that this will serve the taxpayers of American very well.
    Earlier as this case unfolded, I communicated to elected 
officials from North Carolina my opposition to the initial case as I 
believe it showed undue interference from the federal government 
against a company which was one of the most successful the world has 
ever known. The fact that nearly all home and business users depend 
on Microsoftp roducts simply means that their products are efficient 
and economical. Noc onsumer harm has ever been shown, even by the 
attorney arguing the case. That is why that I hope the judge will 
approve this settlement since Microsoft will allow monitoring and 
agree to guarantee equity to suppliers and others. In fact, 
Microsoft was willing to settle with the government a year ago, but 
the state attorneysg eneral blocked the settlement and Microsoft 
stock fell sharply.
    As a person who believes in the less government intervention the 
better, I don't want any company to ever get in a situation where 
their economic future is mandated by the federal government. If the 
company cannot perform in the marketplace, has lousy products or is 
outgunned by competitors, so be it. But that's the way it's supposed 
be--;not getting lambasted by the Department of Justice.
    Thanks for your time in reviewing my views on this issue
    Sincerely,
    Mark Baker
    2965 Rhonswood Dr.
    Tobaccoville, NC 27050
    mugsyb;@peoplepc.com
    336-;969-;4913



MTC-00029252

From: Timothy C. York
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 10:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Timothy C. York
7139 Hampstead Lane
Indianapolis, IN 46256-;2315
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 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,
    Timothy C. York

[[Page 28547]]



MTC-00029253

From: Leo Stevenson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:11pm
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-00029254

From: Richard Ludwig
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 10:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Richard Ludwig
104 Hunstanton
Williamsburg, VA 23188-;9144
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 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,
    Richard M. Ludwig



MTC-00029255

From: Keith Duemling
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Attorney General John Ashcroft,
    Please see attached to this email a Microsoft Word document 
which adequately summaries my opinions regarding the Microsoft 
Settlement. Thank you for your time.
Keith Duemling
[email protected]
MSN Messenger: kduemling
Support the Freedom To Innovate: http://www.freetoinnovate.com/ //
end
CC: [email protected]@inetgw
711 W Smith Road
Medina, Ohio 44256
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As a supporter of Microsoft, I write you with concern regarding 
the recent settlement. The terms of this settlement were part of a 
well thought out process, which was monitored throughout the entire 
time. It seems impossible that there could be any more room for 
scrutiny. Let us let these terms speak for themselves and help get 
our technology industry back to business.
    As our economy continues to take a dip, we must do all we can to 
support our technology industry. Since it acts as a large part of 
our economy, we need to help solidify its place in the global 
market. The terms of this agreement help to create a more unified IT 
sector, which can only help us to work together to keep our place in 
this global market. By delaying the process, we only open the doors 
for our competitors, while we focus on litigation. Please help to 
support this settlement by stopping any further action against the 
agreement. Help us to help our IT sector get back to business, I 
thank you for your support.
    Sincerely,
    Keith Duemling



MTC-00029256

From: Brent Wilde
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
M. Brent Wilde, MAI
1980--;112th Ave. NE, Suite 270
Bellevue, WA 98004
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing, today, the last day of the public comment period, 
to show my support for the settlement of the Microsoft antitrust 
case. This case has gone on long enough. The antitrust case against 
computer company, IBM, dragged on through the 1960s, 1970s and into 
the 1980s. Nothing like that should happen again. The new judge in 
the case appointed a mediator who helped the parties to negotiate 
together for three months. The settlement should be approved in the 
best interest of the American people. The settlement will make its 
easier for other companies to work with Microsoft in using its 
software codes and changing the programs included in its very 
popular Windows operating system installation. There will be a 
technical committee of experts who will inspect Microsoft's software 
and its facilities to see that the agreement is complied with. The 
committee will also hear and investigate complaints file by third 
parties. I would appreciate your continuing support for the 
Microsoft antitrust settlement. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Brent Wilde



MTC-00029257

From: Walt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Memo
To: Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
From: Walt Chambers
Date: 1/28/02 
Re: Microsoft Settlement.
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my support for the settlement that was 
reached between Microsoft and the Justice Department. First let me 
state that I have been in the Industry since 1976 and have worked 
with Major retailers such as Zales Corp., Major credit card 
processors such as MBNA. Major banks such as American Savings, 
Australian New Zealand Bank, State Bank of South Australia. Major 
manufacturers such as Alp's Electric. I have worked as a consultant 
for Arthur Andersen Consulting, Cap Gemini Sorgetti, and Computer 
People Australia. In my various positions with these firms I have 
been involved with contract negotiations with IBM, Microsoft, 
Fujitsu, Honeywell, etc? In all my dealings with Microsoft I have 
never witnessed any unfair dealings and they were usually the 
industry norm or even a little less competitive than say IBM.
    The consumers were in my opinion already well protected by 
Microsoft from Hardware manufacturers which were trying to make 
their configurations of Microsoft proprietary and lock business 
consultants like myself out? If you look back to when PC's first 
came out this was the biggest problem.. Until Microsoft stepped up 
to the plate and forced conformity so that the user would have a 
consistent experience across all platforms and vendors. I feel the 
settlement would end the waste of time and money by our government. 
In my opinion the whole legal battle was never really about the 
consumer but was focused on corporate access to government 
lobbyist's by hardware and other software manufacturers who weren?t 
smart enough to compete.
    I believe the settlement which ends the wasteful court battles 
is good for consumers and the entire computer industry. The terms of 
the settlement indicate an extensive agreement that requires many 
concessions from Microsoft. 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. And Microsoft will not retaliate against any 
computer maker who takes advantage of these new rights. Microsoft 
will also be monitored by a three-member Technical Committee that 
will assure the company meets its obligations.
    As a member of the computer industry, I know the importance of 
Microsoft not only to our industry but also to the entire economy. 
Concluding this settlement will provide certainty to the industry 
and give Microsoft the freedom to design new technology. I hope you 
will continue to support the settlement and take no further action 
in litigating this case

[[Page 28548]]

    Sincerely,
    Walt.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00029258

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:15pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    it is my opinion that the case between states and microsoft 
should be settled as per the DOJ.- Thank you.



MTC-00029259

From: Steve Townsend
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:17pm
Subject: Re: U.S. v. Microsoft: Settlement Information
    To Whom It May Concern,
    The terms of the settlement with Microsoft are completely 
unacceptable. I hope that it is apparent to those persons in power 
to make such decisions that Microsoft will not be stemmed from their 
monopolistic practices with any settlement that allows them such 
freedom of interpretation.
    They (Microsoft) have shown their contempt for and avoidance of 
any measures attempting to restrict their behavior. It was obvious 
from the demeanor of CEO Bill Gates during the trial and the 
continuation of monopolistic practices by Microsoft during the trial 
and after the findings of guilt that anything short of structural 
changes to the company will be ineffectual in limiting their 
monopolistic tendencies.
    Microsoft is positioning to extend its reach into key areas of 
our emerging economy. The operating system monopoly that they enjoy 
is allowing them to push their .Net product. Microsoft, who's record 
on security issues is horrendous, is looking to become part of all 
internet financial transactions by forcing the .Net infrastructure 
and wants us to entrust them with our sensitive data. Their browser 
monopoly will insure that the interface for virtually all internet 
shoppers will be controlled by Microsoft. Their monopolistic might 
is forcing restrictive marketing of the MSN network product.
    Microsoft has a history of pushing ahead with it's own 
``standards'' circumventing the international standards 
committees that help to provide a secure and level playing field. 
The fact that 99.99% of all viruses and data security threats that 
exist thrive on Microsoft technology. The holes in Microsoft 
programs that are left to provide businesses easy marketing 
opportunities are included at the expense of public privacy and 
security concerns.
    In a marketplace free of the heavy handed monopolist NO customer 
would opt to expose themselves to the additional risk involved in 
using Microsoft internet products. Whatever the final solution, it 
must prevent the continued free reign by this megalomaniacal 
corporation.
    Sincerely,
    Stephen J. Townsend
    Cottage Grove, MN



MTC-00029260

From: Sandra Helmich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:17pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Dept. of Justice
c/o email [email protected]
    Dear Sir Ashcroft:
    I am a Microsoft user. I want to say I fully support the recent 
Microsoft-Department of Justice settlement. It's great Microsoft 
will not be broken up. However, the lawsuit was too costly and long. 
The terms agreed upon seem to violate Microsoft's intellectual 
property rights, by being forced to disclose internal info about the 
Windows operating system and requiring future design versions making 
it easier for competitors to promote their products within Windows. 
Our economic future depends on intellectual innovation and it is to 
be protected to insure future incentive and financial success. I 
strongly urge your office to imlement the settlement, as the 
alternative ..more litigation, will only impact our tech economy and 
stifle our markets.
    Respectfully submitted,
    Sandra M. Helmich/signature
    cc: Rep. Jeff Flake



MTC-00029261

From: Jerry Schultz
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 10:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jerry Schultz
7007 L.5 Lane
Escanaba, MI 49829
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 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,
    Jerry L. Schultz



MTC-00029262

From: Ryan Bender
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 10:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ryan Bender
P.O. box 774
Topeka, IN 46571
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 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,
    Ryan Bender



MTC-00029263

From: Sarah Carroll
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 10:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sarah Carroll
P.O. Box 490
Valders, WI 54245
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 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

[[Page 28549]]

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,
    Sarah L. Carroll



MTC-00029264

From: Mark MacNeil
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Case Comment
    DOJ,
    I think your case against Microsoft Corp. was a disgrace to the 
American Legal System. It seems you allowed a group of businessmen 
from the likes of Sun Microsystems and AOL, who couldn't compete 
with Microsoft on the field of software design and customer service, 
and allowed them a chance in a courtroom to do what they could never 
have done through any work of their own. I use all Microsoft 
products because of their good design and customer service. I think 
you should point your legal gun somewhere else...and perhaps you 
should read Greenspan's work entitled: AntiTrust. Found in Ayn Rands 
collection of works ``For the New Intellectual''.
    Mark MacNeil



MTC-00029265

From: RWB
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement does not begin to address the market 
arrogance and bullying behavior which characterized Microsoft's 
marketing over the past decade. The public destruction of Netscape 
by giving away it's browser for free and then simply including it in 
the operating system are just one of many acts which the company has 
taken to reduce or destroy competition. The beginnings of a 
sufficient remedy would include requiring Microsoft to cease to 
offer a browser at all and to agree to never sell a product at less 
then a competitive product even if they have a minority market 
share. The agreement not to sell must be adjusted for the effects of 
``bundling'' which Microsoft has used not only against 
Netscape but also WordPerfect and many others.
    Rodger Barkus
    (formerly Software Association of Oregon board member and the 
COO of a software company.)



MTC-00029266

From: Diane Collins
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 10:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Diane Collins
944 Ark 175
Hardy, Ar 72542
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 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,
    Diane Collins



MTC-00029267

From: Bernard Katz
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 10:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Bernard Katz
17 Riesling Ct.
Commack, NY 11725-;1735
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 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,
    Bernard Katz



MTC-00029268

From: George Lawrence Storm
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the Microsoft settlement. If accepted it would 
penalize those schools involved, greatly reward the monopolistic 
practices of Microsoft and highly penalize the only creative 
computer developer left in the US.
    As the current settlement stands Microsoft will pay virtually 
nothing by donating obsolete equipment which has already been 
written off and donating software that they never would have sold. 
This settlement places a significant financial penalty on those 
schools that would be foolish enough to accept this farce. It is a 
fact that support costs for the windows platform are on the order of 
ten to one. If we were to accept the notion that this 
``donation'' was one billion dollars the schools involved 
would need to raise ten billion dollars to support the hardware, 
software and training needed to support it during the very short 
life remaining in it.
    If however a cash fine of one billion was made with that cash 
going to the purchase of new Macintosh hardware and software those 
same schools would only need to raise three billion, six hundred 
million, a bit more than a third the support cost. Additionally the 
life of the equipment would offer more than twice the longevity of 
Microsoft's proposed donation. This would further reduce the strain 
on school budgets by extending the support costs over a five year 
verses a two-year period of time.
    (The factors of 10 and 3.6 are a few years old and need to be 
researched to see if they have changed recently.) If we are to teach 
our children the values of honesty and integrity it should be that 
these values are important. Letting the proposed settlement stand 
only teaches them that success is based on lies and theft.
    If you want to teach justice the only way is to impose the 
severest of penalties which must include significant jail time for 
all those involved. Anything less is to reward the criminals 
involved.
    Sincerely,
    George Lawrence Storm
    George Lawrence Storm
    1916 Pike Place / Suite 12 / #441
    Seattle, Washington 98101
    Telephone: (206) 334--;7236
    E-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00029269

From: Wayne Borean
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Proposed settlement will have virtually no effect on 
Microsoft. The settlement is deeply flawed, and needs to be totally 
recast to have any real and lasting effect on the monopolistic 
practises of Microsoft Corporation.
    Wayne Borean
    President
    forkliftguy.com

[[Page 28550]]



MTC-00029270

From: Sirena Lau
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:22pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Stella L. Lau
1139 Bacon Street
San Francisco, CA 94134
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The purpose of this letter is for me to go on record as favoring 
the settlement agreed to by Microsoft and the Justice Department. It 
is about time that the two sides came to an agreement, and I only 
hope that this settlement is approved without any delay. Competition 
in the computer industry is going to benefit greatly from this 
decision. Microsoft will be producing future versions of Windows 
that will allow other computer makers and software developers to add 
their own versions of software that compete with programs included 
within Windows. They will also be able to remove easily 
Windows'' software. Companies will now be free to compete with 
one another, and the quality of software will rise as a result.
    This settlement is just what is needed, and I stand behind it 
100%.
    Sincerely,
    Stella Lau



MTC-00029271

From: Patricia Deibler
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 10:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Patricia Deibler
25742 Cervantes
Mission Viejo, CA 92691-;5604
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 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,
    Patricia Deibler



MTC-00029272

From: Jeff Clearwater
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Your Honor, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly,
    Please do what you can to stop this juggernaut from doing more 
damage to an already over monopolized industry!
    I agree totally with the filing by ProComp regarding the 
Microsoft ``settlement''. This is a travesty of justice. 
Microsoft clearly has grossly violated antitrust legislation and has 
monopolized the market in ways that clearly suppresses innovation 
and competition in the operating system, browser, and scripting 
software industries. The filing by Procom says it the best. I 
reproduce an article with the specifics below.
    ``This proposed decree is so ineffective that it would not 
have prevented Microsoft from destroying Netscape and Java, the very 
acts that gave rise to this lawsuit,'' said Judge Robert H. 
Bork. ``It is so ineffective in controlling Microsoft that it 
might as well have been written by Microsoft itself.''
    The ProComp filing explained that Judge Kollar-Kotelly must make 
a truly independent determination of whether the proposed settlement 
is in the public interest, with the public interest standard defined 
by the Court of Appeals ruling in this case.
    Sincerely,
    Jeff Clearwater 
    Reference Article:
    Judge Bork and Judge Kenneth W. Starr were among those signing a 
Tunney Act filing on the settlement submitted today by the Project 
to Promote Competition and Innovation in the Digital Age (ProComp), 
a leading opponent of the settlement.
    The ProComp filing also included an affidavit critical of the 
proposed settlement from Nobel Prize-winning economist Kenneth J. 
Arrow, a professor at Stanford University, who had supported the 
1995 consent decree between the federal government and Microsoft.
    The ProComp filing explained that Judge Kollar-Kotelly must make 
a truly independent determination of whether the proposed settlement 
is in the public interest, with the public interest standard defined 
by the Court of Appeals ruling in this case.
    ``Because this proposed settlement does not follow the 
mandates of the Court of Appeals judgment, it must be rejected. 
Neither the Department of Justice or the District Court have the 
constitutional authority that does not satisfy the Court of Appeals 
ruling,'' Starr explained. ``This proposed settlement not 
only fails to meet the Court of Appeals standard, it doesn't even 
purport to do so. It is simply based on an inappropriate legal 
standard, and we don't believe it satisfies even this modest 
standard.''
    In his affidavit, Professor Arrow said the new proposed 
settlement between Microsoft and the Department of Justice fails to 
eliminate the benefits to Microsoft of its illegal conduct, fails to 
restore competition in the market, and fails to strengthen the 
possibilities of competition and deter the exercise of monopoly 
power now and in the future.
    Arrow noted that the Court of Appeals ruled that Microsoft 
violated federal antitrust law by impermissibly maintaining its 
monopoly through anticompetitive actions against Netscape and Java. 
``Given that finding, the remedies in this case should 
eliminate the benefits to Microsoft of its illegal conduct; should 
restore, if possible, the possibility of competition in operating 
systems; and should not allow Microsoft to protect its illegally 
maintained monopoly from current and future competition in related 
markets, such as server operating systems and Web services,'' 
Arrow said in his affidavit. ``In my opinion, the PFJ (proposed 
final judgment) fails to accomplish these objectives.''
    Arrow said the market position that Microsoft has 
today--;with 92 percent of the PC operating systems market and 
91 percent of the browser market--;``makes it difficult for 
any set of conduct remedies to lead to significant middleware 
competition. Neither the PFJ nor any other set of conduct remedies 
can re-create the technological disruption or competitive head start 
that existed before Microsoft acted illegally.''
    ProComp's Tunney Act filing also notes that the proposed 
settlement fails to adequately deal with competitive issues that 
will determine the future of the software industry, and does not 
contain the safeguards needed to prevent Microsoft from extending 
its monopoly into more markets.
    ``The proposed decree hardly deals at all with Microsoft's 
likely future anticompetitive conduct. Microsoft's prodigious market 
power is now directed at the next threat to the Windows 
platform--; applications and services provided via the Internet 
and other networks--;not the Netscape/Java threat of 
1995-;99,'' according to the ProComp filing, which was 
signed by Bork, Starr, ProComp President Mike Pettit and others. 
``Microsoft has destroyed those revolutionary technologies that 
are a source of operating systems competition and has moved on to 
other areas that the proposed decree all but ignores.''
    The ProComp Tunney Act filing notes that the proposed 
settlement's strong-sounding provisions are often undercut by other 
sections that give Microsoft broad discretion in interpreting the 
agreement. For example, the proposed settlement permits Microsoft to 
design and bundle its products in different ways to evade the 
disclosure requirements by giving Microsoft ``sole 
discretion'' to decide what software is part of a 
``Windows Operating System Product.''
    ``The API disclosure provisions are riddled with numerous 
deficiencies that render them ineffective in promoting 
competition,'' the ProComp filing said. ``These are not 
loopholes, but triumphal arches that allow Microsoft to proceed 
uninhibited by the antitrust laws.'' Judges Bork and Starr and 
the others supporting the ProComp filing urged Judge Kollar-Kotelly 
to defer a decision

[[Page 28551]]

on the proposed decree until after the hearing on the stronger 
remedies proposed by the nine states which have objected to the 
proposed settlement.
    ``The proposed decree supported by Microsoft and the 
Department of Justice is hopelessly vague and inherently 
unenforceable,'' Starr said. ``We believe that divestiture 
remains the preferable and most effective remedy for Microsoft's 
antitrust violations.'' 
Jeff Clearwater
Ecovillage Design Associates
2525 Arapahoe Ave, Suite E4, #280
Boulder, CO 80302
303-;546-;0460,
[email protected]
[email protected] 



MTC-00029273

From: Marilyn Laurie
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 10:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Marilyn Laurie
6520 Walden Pond Ln. SE
Southport, NC 28461
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 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,
    Marilyn K. Laurie



MTC-00029274

From: John G. Ata
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This letter is written to urge the acceptance and adoption of 
the proposed settlement between the Department of Justice, Microsoft 
and nine states. This agreement addresses perceived concerns of 
``monopolistic practices'' while allowing Microsoft to 
continue to developing software that is useful. The fact that the 
Department of Justice and 9 states have signed on shows that it has 
merit. No alternative has been shown to be better in the long run. 
Those pushing for such alternatives are those who truly wish to put 
Microsoft out of business which is not the best course of action for 
either the industry or our country in the long run. Hopefully, cool 
heads will prevail and the rhetoric of those who wish for harsher 
sanctions can be seen for what they are.
    Sincerely,
    John G. Ata



MTC-00029275

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:21pm
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,
    Raymond L. Put
    10845 Link Rd.
    Fountain, CO 80817-;3380



MTC-00029276

From: CHRISTOPHER A PETERS
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I am writing to express my belief that the proposed settlement 
of the Microsoft anti-trust case is too weak and should be rejected 
by the Court. The remedies proposed would not, in my opinion, go 
nearly far enough to restrain the company from it's proven 
monopolistic behaviour. I write this as an IT professional with over 
10 years of experience in the field.
    I am also a conservative who believes in limited government 
regulation. However, in this case, I believe that it is in the best 
interest of the U.S. taxpayers that harsher penalties be handed down 
to Microsoft. By leveraging its'' near-monopoly on desktop 
operating systems, Microsoft has damaged competition and reduced 
consumer choice.
    In my opinion, the settlement announced in October by the nine 
states and the Dept. of Justice with Microsoft would be nothing more 
than a slap on the wrist. A proper remedy would begin with requiring 
that Microsoft ``unbundle'' its'' Web browser from 
the underlying operating system and force the company to release the 
source code for versions of its'' popular Office suite of 
programs to the general public. Such a remedy would begin to allow 
more competition in the marketplace.
    I do not, however, believe that the company should be broken up.
    Sincerely,
    Christopher A. Peters
    (Microsoft Certified System Engineer)



MTC-00029277

From: Shannon Littlefield
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 10:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Shannon Littlefield
202 W Lockesburg Street
Nashville, AR 71852
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 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,
    Shannon Littlefield



MTC-00029278

From: David Rose
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 10:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
David Rose
2721 NW Cascade
East Wenatchee, Wa 98802
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

[[Page 28552]]

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 M. Rose



MTC-00029279

From: Jeffrey Horn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    United States Justice Department:
    As an assistant professor of Computer Science, with a Ph.D. in 
Computer Science and four years of industry experience as a computer 
networking consultant, it is my opinion that the currently proposed 
settlement between Microsoft and the US Justice Department is 
fundamentally flawed. As a researcher and developer in the field of 
computers, I have seen first hand, time and again, how Microsoft has 
used its monopoly status to stifle competition and innovation. It is 
clear to me that Microsoft, in its corporate philosophy, is not 
interested in innovating, but rather it seeks power and control (and 
profit). I won't bother with the details of examples, as they have 
been well-documented, but I will simply list some examples: the 
elimination of the browser as an alternative desktop, the attempt to 
eliminate the platform-independent programming language Java (which 
supports OS independent processing), the attack on the open-source 
model of software development, etc.
    It is my considered opinion that without Microsoft, or at least 
without its monopolistic influence, the computer industry, the user-
computer interface, and indeed our entire understanding of the how 
computers can help people, would have progressed much further than 
we actually have so far. I strongly recommend a restructuring of the 
corporation, and not simply punitive measures. Microsoft has 
demonstrated repeatedly that it cannot change its corporate culture. 
Instead, the operating system itself must be made open to support of 
third-party products, to include new paradigms of computation. 
Microsoft must not be allowed to keep the entire software 
``pie'' to itself, as it cannot be trusted to do anything 
beneficial with it.
    Thank you for your attention.
    Jeffrey Horn, Ph.D.
    Assistant Professor of Computer Science
    Department of Mathematics and Computer Science
    Northern Michigan University
    Marquette, Michigan 49855
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00029280

From: Alix Barstow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    1) Thank you for bringing this suit on my behalf as an American!
    2) I am very concerned that the final settlement be effective, 
not just in punishing Microsoft for past wrongs, but in creating an 
environment that hinders future wrongdoing by truly enabling 
vigorous competition in the middleware as well as operating systems 
markets. Microsoft has a near monopoly with its Microsoft Office 
suite and I would like to see stronger competition for these 
programs in particular.



MTC-00029281

From: Matt Gainer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    First, even as I type this e-mail in Microsoft Entourage I want 
to thank you for pursuing an aggressive action against the Microsoft 
corporation. There is no disputing the quality of Microsoft's 
products, and the extent that we have come to depend on them; but 
how Microsoft positioned itself as a leader is definitely worthy of 
debate, and hopefully critical action as well.
    Thank you for the opportunity to share the following brief story 
with you: In 1997 I finished Graduate school in Los Angeles and 
accepted my first part time teaching job at a small, private two-
year catholic college located in Palos Verdes, California.
    I was the first lecturer hired to teach Digital Imaging in the 
school's new computer lab. From what I understand, the main computer 
lab, along with the college's central server were at least partially 
(perhaps completely) funded by Microsoft...with the agreement that 
non-microsoft software was not allowed on any of the machines if a 
microsoft brand software existed for a particular task. For 
instance, I was not allowed to install netscape on any of the 
machines since Internet Explorer could perform the same tasks.
    Other teachers complained that they were also forced to use 
microsoft products when there were better alternatives available. 
The issue was not money...since some of the software, like netscape, 
were available as free downloads. The reason that we were not 
allowed to use non microsoft product to teach with was because 
microsoft had defined the parameters of what could be done in the 
lab when they donated the equipment.
    I'm not sure if the agreement with microsoft was legal or not, 
but it made for an extremely frustrating teaching experience, and 
severely limited the ways in which we could use the computers in our 
lab.
    Thanks for listening,
    Matt
    Matt Gainer
    (323)660-;2846



MTC-00029282

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:27pm
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,
    Henry Mastran
    400 Mark Drive
    Tallmadge, OH 44278



MTC-00029283

From: Susan Dillard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
11720 81st Avenue NE
Marysville, WA 98271
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 205301
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Although not a member of technology industry, I would like to 
voice my thoughts on finalizing the Microsoft anti-trust case. To 
claim that Microsoft is operating as a monopoly, with apparently so 
many competitors available that they can bring on this lawsuit, 
comes off as an overblown attack on a company that has succeeded 
through consumer support, not monopolistic practices.
    As I've seen in the telephone industry, there are many more 
monopolies causing much more harm to the consumer than Microsoft has 
ever done. Now that a settlement has been reached, the conditions 
seem highly favorable to the Justice Department, even surpassing 
some of the initial complaints. So, with so many other distractions 
of greater importance on the government's plate, it would seem time 
to finally end this process.
    With regular oversight of a technical committee to ensure 
compliance, Microsoft

[[Page 28553]]

will provide ample opportunities for their rivals to succeed with 
this deal, including more flexible configuration of the Windows 
platform, access to its internal source code and licensing of its 
intellectual property.
    Please move forward with this process and allow these companies 
to go compete in this new environment without further intervention.
    Sincerely,
    Susan Dillard
    CC:[email protected]@
inetgw



MTC-00029284

From: CHARLES DELANEY
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 10:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
CHARLES DELANEY
1219 GLENRIDGE LANE
ELKHORN, WI 53121
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 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,
    CHARLES R. DELANEY



MTC-00029285

From: Tanuj T
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:30pm
Subject: Microsft Settlement
    This is too easy a way out for Microsoft, predominantly because 
Microsoft has so much money, the charges Microsoft need to pay to 
settle its monopoly won't even scratch the company. This is 
meaningless because large companies will continue to get monopolies 
and pay them off without any problems. The settlement needs to go 
farther than that, to prevent large companies from getting away with 
monopolies easily. Just like Carnegie's vertical monopoly on steel, 
he had made so much money, he still had his monopoly on steel.
    What should be done is Microsoft should break up into two 
competing companies. Thus they will not be able to form trusts more 
overtly than what they're doing now. Another solution would be to 
force Microsoft to have two versions of Windows available; one with 
all the features and software it has now, and one with just the 
operating system itself. However, I believe this aspect is not an 
issue because Microsoft just has a better product. The Operating 
System doesn't prevent one from installing Netscape or anything of 
that nature, it's equal opportunity for all ventures.
    In addition to it being too easy for large companies to get away 
with monopolies, other companies also bundle up their software, such 
as Apple. So in reality they are also cutting off the market because 
Apple requires you to purchase their software and hardware because 
it won't work any other way.
    For example, the Mac Operating System obliges you to also buy a 
Mac printer, Mac compatible word processors, Mac games, Mac 
compatible browsers, etc.. They are cutting off the market from 
Microsoft and other companies, who can't put too much software on it 
because it's not compatible or else pay Apple to get it on. Because 
Microsoft doesn't want to waste their money, they just place it on 
their own OS. It's exactly the same idea: Microsoft bundles up 
Office and IE, just the same way Apple bundles up their software. 
However, if Apple receives the lawsuit, they will suffer a lot more 
than Microsoft, who won't get affected by the lawsuit because they 
have so much money.



MTC-00029286

From: ALEXANDER R KOBIEC
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:20pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    REQUEST THAT MICROSOFT SUIT BE SETTLED IN A TIMELY AND FAVORABLE 
OUTCOME IN MICROSOFT'S FAVOR.
    I AM A MICROSOFT USER AND FEEL THAT THEIR PRODUCTS ARE FAIR AND 
REASONABLE. TO RULE AGAINST THEM WOULD STIFLE INNOVATION. I FEEL 
VERY STRONGLY IN MICROSOFT'S FAVOR.
    SINCERELY,
    ALEXANDER R. KOBIEC



MTC-00029287

From: Donald Kochanek
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 10:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Donald Kochanek
757 W. 406 S.
Marion, IN 46953
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 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,
    Donald R. Kochanek



MTC-00029288

From: Janet Gillette
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 10:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Janet Gillette
3419 El Serrito Dr
Salt Lake City, UT 84109
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 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,
    Janet W. Gillette

[[Page 28554]]



MTC-00029289

From: Dora Cividino
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 10:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dora Cividino
14457 Indian Springs Road
Penn Valley, CA 95946
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 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,
    Dora Cividino



MTC-00029290

From: Aleks Totic
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: The Antitrust Division
    My name is Aleksandar Totic. I am writing to comment on the 
proposed Microsoft settlement, and document anti-competitive MS 
behavior that occurred in October 2001. I believe that the behavior 
I've documented clearly demonstrates that MS will inconveniences the 
consumer if it helps to protect its monopoly.
    In ``Competitive Impact Statement'', you claim that 
the settlement will ``restore the competitive threat that 
middleware products posed''. I do not believe that the 
settlement will achieve this goal. This is because:
    A)
    There are many exceptions in the settlement that Microsoft can 
use to hinder competition:
    Section III.D
    Why make interoperating with Windows the sole purpose of the 
disclosure? MS could use this to deny Linux developers access to the 
APIs. The APIs should be public, without any strings attached. 
Section III.H.2 (Windows may invoke MS Middleware) I bet that the 
line ``designated Non-Microsoft Middleware Product fails to 
implement a reasonable technical requirement'' can be used to 
disqualify any middleware MS disagrees with.
    B)
    The only real threat to MS was that the web would make OS 
irrelevant. This can only happen if there is browser competition. 
With IE, MS will make sure that surfing the web on Windows is the 
only good web experience.
    That's all as far as my complaint about the settlement goes. Now 
here is my documentation of Microsoft continuing to clean up any 
remaining competition in browser wars in October 2001.
    DOCUMENTATION OF ANTI-COMPETITIVE BEHAVIOR, OCTOBER 2001
    I was one of the founding engineers of Netscape, employee 
#11, followed Marc from Illinois. I was one of the authors of 
the Plugin API for Netscape, back in 95.
    Microsoft cloned our API right away in IE, and then removed in 
October of 2001 as a part of Service Pack 2 for IE5.5/IE6. This 
caused all Plugin API plugins to stop working, including QuickTime. 
Some of the Apple's engineers spent a few sleepless nights, 
frantically rewriting the Quicktime plugin to support ActiveX.
    To understand how sinister this move was, you need to know a bit 
about the Plugin API. It is a standard by which 3rd party developers 
can extend browser functionality, allowing movies, complex 
animations to be played in web pages. Flash, RealPlayer, and 
Quicktime are examples of plugins. The Plugin API was cross-
platform, and was widely used, implemented in other browsers, such 
as Opera.
    Microsoft cloned Netscape's Plugin API under competitive 
pressure in IE 2, and also created a competing standard called 
ActiveX. ActiveX of course was available only on Windows, and no 
other browsers ever supported it.
    ActiveX and Plugin API were competing standards. Despite MS much 
more extensive support for ActiveX, Plugin API was widely used, 
because it was simpler to use, and cross-platform.
    When MS removed it, movies stopped playing for millions of movie 
watching consumers that relied on Quicktime. In one stroke, MS 
killed PluginAPI, and hurt Quicktime, a competitor of Movie Player. 
The move inconvenienced the consumers, who had to go to Quicktime 
site to upgrade or start using Microsoft movie, developers. The only 
benefit was to Microsoft, to lock people into using IE. And this 
occurred in October 2001, after they were found guilty.
    Microsoft statement about removing the API can be found at: 
``Netscape-Style Plug-ins Do Not Work After Upgrading Internet 
Explorer'' http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/
q303/4/01.asp The list of plugins supporting the Plugin API: http://
browserwatch.internet.com/plug-in/plug-in-big-ah.html
    Later, they also decided not to ship Java, further destroying 
the cross-platform promise of the web.
    As one of the original visionaries of the web that transcends 
Operating Systems, this makes me very mad. I applaud Microsoft 
winning through quality and innovation, but they keep pursuing API 
lock-in and monopoly as their favorite means of competition.
    If you need any further help, I'd be happy to fly out to 
Washington, testify, do more competitive analysis, code review, etc.
    Thank you for your time,
    Aleksandar Totic
    2023 Pacific Avenue
    San Francisco, CA 94109



MTC-00029291

From: 
[email protected]@inetg
w
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a user of Microsoft's products, I object to the company being 
punished for its success. The suit was brought by Microsoft's 
competitors, who were not able to produce a product as good as 
Microsoft's. Business must be allowed to function in a free society, 
and to function competitively.
    The consumer always has the choice to buy from Microsoft, or 
not. Noone is being cooerced. I stand for Microsoft's right to 
produce the best product it can. And it's right to own that which it 
produces.
    Susan Crawford
    Silver Spring, Md.



MTC-00029292

From: Ronald Hall
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 10:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ronald Hall
PO Box 2020
Hew Hartford, NY 13413
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 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.

[[Page 28555]]

    Sincerely,
    Ronald D. Hall



MTC-00029293

From: Lester Hixson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 10:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lester Hixson
173 San Marcos Dr
Lodi, CA 95240
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 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,
    Lester N Hixson



MTC-00029294

From: Frank West
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Just a short comment.
    Why pick on Microsoft when the real ``monopolies'' 
consist of Big Government's overstuffed ``Bureaucracies''! 
Of course, all the shysters in congress need something to turn the 
attention away from themselves since ``statesmanship'' is 
so lacking in this modern age.
    F T West
    Elyria, OH



MTC-00029296

From: brad
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Brad Smith
5011 Dixie Highway NE, Suite A-308
Palm Bay, Florida 32905
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I want to take a moment to express my support for the settlement 
reached between Microsoft and the Department of Justice in November. 
I believe the settlement is reasonable and fair to all sides 
involved in this case.
    The agreement requires significant changes in Microsoft's 
practices. For example, Microsoft will have to design future 
versions of Windows that provides a mechanism to make it easy for 
computer makers, consumers and software developers to promote non-
Microsoft software within Windows. This will give consumers who do 
not like Microsoft products the freedom to change their 
configuration at any time.
    And to assure compliance with the agreement, Microsoft has 
agreed to be monitored by a Technical Committee formed by the 
Justice Department.
    As a frequent user of Microsoft products, I know firsthand of 
the innovation Microsoft has brought to consumers over the years. 
This settlement allows Microsoft to shift their focus back to 
innovation and away from litigation. This alone makes the settlement 
definitely in the public interest.
    Thank you for the opportunity to give my public comment on this 
matter. Hopefully with your office's continued support of this 
settlement, a final conclusion can be reached in the near future.
    Sincerely,
    Brad Smith



MTC-00029297

From: warren (038) florence schreiner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:37pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I am a relatively newcomer to the PC scene ( about five years) 
and have followed the judicial proceedings re the charges involving 
monopolistic practices on the part of Microsoft. As a user of 
windows 95, 98 and soon XP Home Edition I have only the highest 
admiration for the products Microsoft has put out and cannot believe 
the country would benefit from the Draconian measures some have 
called for. The settlement now proposed between the US government 
and Microsoft seems to me to be entirely reasonable from my standing 
as a consumer. When I had some dissatisfaction with the browser and 
email programs bundled with W 95 I switched to the Navigator 
software. Anyone was and is free to do the same. The sane was true 
of the McAfee virus protection software from which I switched to 
Symantec's. Since then Microsoft has improved its products and in XP 
I'll rely on Explorer and Contact Express. Microsoft maintains an 
upgrading system and is responsive to complaints about bugs in its 
product by providing free patches. I urge you to proceed and 
finalize the settlement along the lines as I understand them from 
media reports.
    Respectfully yours,
    Warren C. Schreiner
    2351 Stag Run Blvd
    Clearwater, FL 33765
    727 791 1179



MTC-00029299

From: Vincent Papa
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 10:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Vincent Papa
1313 Mockingbird Ln.
Mineola, ny 11501
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 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,
    Vincent Papa



MTC-00029300

From: Huland B. Gardner
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 10:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Huland B. Gardner
4300 Tartt ``s Mill Rd
Wilson, NC 27893-;7927
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 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

[[Page 28556]]

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. Let this 
stand!!! Enough is ENOUGH !!!
    Sincerely,
    Huland B Gardner



MTC-00029301

From: Larry Young
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle the Microsoft case based on the terms agreed 
between the Justice Department and Microsoft.
    I believe this case has always been about Oracle, Sun and AOL 
not wanting to compete in the marketplace. These companies would 
rather stifle competition by wasting court time. For sure there are 
some actions on Microsoft's part that can be altered, such as 
publishing all of the API's to the development community. Making 
sure Microsoft treats all companies the same and not withholding 
information to competitors, another issue that should be addressed 
and is addressed in the Government agreement with Microsoft. However 
many of the same policies and procedures are practiced by the 
companies that initially brought attention to Microsoft. Oracle is 
now bundling their software and is attempting to prevent the Oracle 
user from installing products not sold by Oracle. Sun wants to tie 
all of its products to Java. AOL refuses to open their Instant 
Messenger software to other companies. How can AOL accuse Microsoft 
an antitrust violator when AOL may also be an antitrust violator? 
Now AOL wants all of its users to stay on servers owned and 
maintained by AOL instead of having them surf the Internet.
    While Microsoft is attempting to promote sites that have a 
relationship with Microsoft they are also big defenders and 
promoters of the Internet. If AOL has its way the Net will die on 
the vine the way Main Street withers when a Wal-Mart comes to town. 
Please allow Microsoft to remain strong to prevent AOL from 
destroying the open commerce that is thriving today on the Net. 
Oracle, Sun and AOL are laughing while the courts enhance their self 
interest by at best stifling and at worse destroying a competitor 
they wish not to compete with in the open market place.
    Palm
    Palm believes Microsoft is destroying their business. Consider 
that initially 3Com refused to create a separate company thereby 
forcing the hand of the original developers to leave the company. 
After the original developers left and started Handspring, 3Com 
created the separate company. Now with the loss of prime talent, 
Palm has languished. By all accounts it has been the misdirection 
and lack of creativity of the Palm management that has allowed 
Microsoft to take some market share and create a viable product. Why 
should Palm be allowed to be the only product in the market? If this 
economy can support more than one automobile company, it can have 
the Pocket PC alongside the Palm.
    Netscape
    Netscape lost the browser war because they did not have the 
better product. It doesn't get any simpler than that and now AOL 
wants treble damages for making a product that could not compete and 
was allowed to languish for years without any effort directed at 
fixing the product. Where is the justice?
    FTP Software
    If any company should have brought Microsoft to court it is this 
one. When Microsoft bundled TCP/IP software in the operating system 
this company could not survive. Today it is unthinkable to consider 
that an operating system can exist with out TCP/IP services. In fact 
the UNIX operating systems had this before Microsoft, suggesting 
that this was indeed a service that belonged in the operating 
system. In the early years Microsoft didn't even have memory 
management. That also was provided by a third party. In this case 
Norton, now owned by Symantec, has been able to morph into other 
areas. Symantec is a company that knows how to create software the 
market needs without running to the courts. The point I am trying to 
make is that government and the courts should not micromanage the 
bundling of products in the operating system. If it was done years 
ago then memory management and TCP/IP services would not have become 
a part of the operating system. This would have been an incredible 
injustice to Microsoft and the consumer. If we cannot see into the 
future or look at the present to determine if the customer is 
damaged then we should look at the past. Companies like Symantec 
would not have become a strong competitor. The operating system 
capable of supporting consumers and the business community would not 
exist. The computer would still be behind glass walls, out of reach 
of the consumer. I only suggest that Microsoft be required to either 
sell a feature as a standalone product or be aloud to include the 
feature in the operating system.
    The number of software companies that have formed and flourished 
because of Microsoft is probably greater than any other company. The 
number of Microsoft managers and developers that have left to form 
their own companies is greater than any other company. Microsoft has 
not only brought computing to the masses but enabled an industry to 
become world class. These actions have enabled consumers to realize 
a marketplace rich in products and services that would not have 
happened if Microsoft did not exist. All Sun and Oracle want to do 
is sell expensive products that only companies can afford. Sun, 
Oracle and AOL do not want to compete fairly in the marketplace. AOL 
won't open their messenger product. Oracle bundles and is creating 
an operating system under their products. How can Oracle justify 
that type of bundling? All these companies want to do is overcharge 
the consumer and create products that have no competition. How does 
wounding Microsoft help the customer under these circumstances?
    I am not an Attorney and therefore I can not even consider the 
possibility of forming my thoughts into a cohesive legal brief. I 
therefore appreciate the chance to express my feelings about the 
case rather than crafting a legal argument.
    Thank you.
    Larry Young



MTC-00029302

From: Myron Schreiner
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 10:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Myron Schreiner
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,
    Myron M Schreiner



MTC-00029304

From: Ron Peterson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As Microsoft has already been found guilty of abusing it's 
monopoly power, I shall confine my comments to the remedy phase of 
the trial. At minimum, I hope the court can restore competition to 
those markets where Microsoft's abuse of their operating system 
monopoly has given them unfair advantage. This would be a minimal 
remedy, in the sense that it restores things to the way they should 
be, without imposing any punitive damages for Microsoft's illegal 
conduct. Speaking as a career systems manager, I live by a 
commonplace aphorism: ``Buy computers for the 
applications''. Not for the packaging. Not for the fancy 
hardware. No,

[[Page 28557]]

not for the operating system. For the ways they extend people's 
capabilities. For the applications.
    These days, that doesn't leave me much choice. Like Microsoft, I 
value the ``freedom to innovate''. I also believe this 
freedom should extend to everyone, not just Microsoft. I don't have 
that freedom. Microsoft's competitors don't have that freedom 
either.
    I buy computers that will most cost effectively run Microsoft 
operating systems and Microsoft applications, because I must. If I 
do not, the people I serve will not be able to effectively 
communicate with collegues, clients, patrons, vendors, friends, and 
family. Microsoft's dominance in the applications arena hinges on 
its proprietary data formats. I cannot reasonably ask my patrons to 
run applications that cannot faithfully, reliably, and consistently 
both read and write Microsoft documents. However, applications that 
meet these criteria do not exist, because Microsoft controls the 
format, but does not divulge the operational details. If a 
competitor comprehends the format, Microsoft changes it. Microsoft 
gets an upgrade fee; the competitor starts over.
    There is only one way to restore competition to the market for 
computer applications. Microsoft *must* be compelled to divulge its 
applications'' file formats. Without this restriction, 
Microsoft will continue to monopolize the market for computer 
applications indefinitely. Considering that these applications 
intrude into almost all aspects of our daily lives--;even, as 
I'm sure you are aware, into the very operation of 
government--;this situation *must* end.
    Additionally, Microsoft must be compelled to divulge the format 
of its network protocols. Microsoft understands full well that 
compatibility is the key to the kingdom. If they control proprietary 
de-facto standards for file formats and networking protocols, they 
control everything. Please don't be mislead by so-called 
``compromise'' positions advanced by Microsoft that would 
open their ``API's'' or Application Programming 
Interfaces. This position is simply a ruse to promote further 
adoption of Microsoft applications.
    If you compell Microsoft to open their file formats and their 
networking protocols, you will invigorate the marketplace. You will 
compell competition on the merits, rather than binary compatibility. 
You will restore the market to where it should have always been. And 
you will establish a worthy precedent for how to deal with similar 
future abuses of monopoly power in the software marketplace.
    Best wishes
    Ron Peterson
    Network & Systems Manager
    Mount Holyoke College
    http://www.mtholyoke.edu/rpeterso



MTC-00029305

From: Dave Stewart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Attached please find the comments of RealNetworks, Inc. 
addressing the Revised Proposed Final Judgment filed by Microsoft, 
the Department of Justice and certain plaintiff states.
    In the event you have any questions or problems relating to the 
transmission of this document, please call Dave Stewart at (206) 
892-;6122.
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 98-;1232 (CKK)
    MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
    Defendant.
    STATE OF NEW YORK, et al.,)
    Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 98-;1233 (CKK)
    MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
    Defendant.
    COMMENTS OF REALNETWORKS, INC. ON THE REVISED, PROPOSED FINAL 
JUDGMENT SUBMITTED BY MICROSOFT CORP., THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 
JUSTICE AND CERTAIN PLAINTIFF STATES DATED: JANUARY 28, 2002
    I. INTRODUCTION
    The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit has held that, over the last seven years, Microsoft has 
engaged in a broad range of anticompetitive conduct seeking to 
stifle the development and distribution of innovative middleware 
technologies. Microsoft's actions have been directed at 
entrepreneurial competitors that have, through innovation and 
ground-breaking competition, invented new products, such as internet 
browsers, electronic mail, instant messaging, digital imaging, 
digital media and voice recognition, that have given rise to 
entirely new industries and new sources of consumer welfare. By 
imposing an effective remedy to curb Microsoft's anticompetitive 
abuses, this Court can help ensure that the varied markets for 
innovative middleware products remain fertile ground for competition 
and innovation.
    Driven by a desire to maintain the dominance of its operating 
system monopoly, Microsoft has, as the trial court's factual 
findings and the Court of Appeals' opinion demonstrate, consistently 
used its monopoly power in a manner that harms consumers and 
competition. By manipulating the design of its operating system and 
its own middleware products, Microsoft has effectively denied 
personal computer manufacturers (``OEMs'') the ability to 
choose whether or not they want to include Microsoft middleware 
products on the computers they sell and similarly denied consumers 
the ability to remove such software from the computers they buy. By 
imposing broad, exclusionary licensing restrictions by fiat, 
Microsoft has denied OEMs the opportunity to configure their 
personal computers in the way they choose, being required instead to 
favor Microsoft's middleware products over those offered by 
competitors. By entering into exclusive contracts with a broad range 
of parties, such as Internet Access Providers (DIAPsï¿½), 
Internet Content Providers (DICPsï¿½), Independent Software 
Vendors (DISVsï¿½) and Independent Hardware Vendors 
(DIHVsï¿½), Microsoft has to a significant extent foreclosed 
the distribution of competing middleware products. At every step of 
this process, Microsoft has wielded its monopoly power to threaten, 
coerce and retaliate against parties that resist its demands.
    As a result, Microsoft has effectively denied consumers the 
choice of buying a personal computer that is not laden with 
Microsoft middleware products. This harms not only today's computer 
users, but tomorrow's purchasers of personal computers, cellular 
telephones, personal digital assistants, digital home entertainment 
centers, set-top boxes, and game consoles, all of whom may have 
their choices substantially limited if Microsoft's anticompetitive 
curbs on innovation are not constrained today. It is long settled 
that such broad findings of liability demand even broader, forward-
looking remedies designed to prohibit Microsoft from continuing its 
anticompetitive acts and finding new ways to hinder the growth of 
other innovative middleware products. The failure of the last 
consent decree agreed to between Microsoft and the Department of 
Justice (DDOJï¿½) in 1995 serves as a stark reminder of the 
waste of judicial resources and harm to competition that results 
from a narrow, backward-looking remedy. Neither consumers nor 
competition will be served through imposition of yet another flawed, 
ineffective remedy that will make the next antitrust suit a foregone 
conclusion.
    Unfortunately, the Revised Proposed Final Judgment offered by 
Microsoft, the DOJ and certain states (``RPFJ'') fails to 
heed the all-too-recent lessons of history. As discussed herein, the 
contours of the RPFJ reflect the concessions required to gain 
Microsoft's agreement rather than the safeguards required to 
constrain Microsoft's anticompetitive conduct. The loophole-laden 
RPFJ is full of exceptions and ambiguities that will not only fail 
to terminate Microsoft's anticompetitive conduct, but will ensure 
that extended judicial proceedings will be required to clarify, if 
not enforce, its provisions.
    For the reasons set forth below, RealNetworks respectfully 
submits that entry of the RPFJ would not be in the public interest.
    II. REALNETWORKS AND THE DIGITAL MEDIA MARKET
    RealNetworks, which was founded in Seattle, Washington in 
1994,\1\ is a pioneer in the development of digital media technology 
and services that enable people to create, deliver, discover, and 
play digital audio and video content over the Internet and other 
networks, both through downloading and through a method RealNetworks 
developed called ``streaming.'' Streaming allows digital 
media files to be compressed and broken into packets, then delivered 
and decompressed seriatim, so that consumers can enjoy 
uninterrupted, real-time broadcasts over the Internet. For example, 
following the events of September 11, 2001, CNN streamed its 
newscast via the Internet 24 hours a day to

[[Page 28558]]

provide people with immediate access to the breaking news from their 
desktops. Innovation in the market for media players has 
consistently been driven, not through integration of functionality 
into operating systems, but by independent developers creating a new 
market for sophisticated digital media technologies with robust and 
integrated features and functions. RealNetworks developed the first 
streaming media player and the first streaming media server in 1995. 
Since then, RealNetworks has continued to lead innovation in the 
digital media delivery market, consistently bringing industry-
leading innovations--;such as a built-in radio tuner, delivery 
of stereo audio at 28.8 kbps modem speeds, bookmarking of favorite 
streams, links to media programming, support for animation, and 
automatic updating and just-in-time installation of codecs--;to 
consumers ahead of Microsoft. Rather than being a source of 
innovation, Microsoft's commingling of its media player into its 
operating system has constituted a means by which it has sought to 
suppress, rather than spur, innovation and competition. 
RealNetworks' technology falls squarely within the Court of Appeals' 
definition of middleware as ``software products that expose 
their own APIs,'' or Application Programming Interfaces.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\RealNetworks was originally named Progressive 
Networks. It changed its name to RealNetworks in September 1997.
    \2\United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34, 53 (DC 
Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 151 L. Ed. 2d 264, 122 S. Ct. 350, 70 
U.S.L.W. 3267 (2001). APIs are interfaces exposed by operating 
systems and middleware that support the functions of software 
programs, called ``applications,'' that perform specific 
user-oriented tasks. APIs ``are synapses at which the developer 
of an application can connect to invoke pre-fabricated blocks of 
code in the operating system. These block of code in turn blocks of 
code in the operating system. These blocks of code in turn perform 
crucial tasks, such as displaying text on the computer 
screen.'' United States v. Microsoft Corp., 84 F. Supp. 2d 9, N 
2 (D.DC 1999), aff'd, 253 F.3d 34 (DC Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 151 
L. Ed. 2d 264, 122 S. Ct. 350, 70 U.S.L.W. 3267 (2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    RealNetworks makes available software development kits to enable 
software developers to build applications and extensions using 
RealNetworks' technologies to create, deliver and playback digital 
media. Over 500 ISVs are developing applications using RealNetworks 
SDKs and websites that provide access to content in RealNetworks' 
RealAudio and RealVideo formats utilize RealNetworks' middleware. 
Microsoft competes with RealNetworks in seeking to convince software 
developers and content providers to build applications using their 
respective technologies. Applications created using RealNetworks' 
technology include news broadcasts, distance learning, financial 
reporting, security for streamed and downloaded content, radio 
broadcast services, music subscription services, video-on-demand 
services, web conferencing, e-commerce services and more. One need 
only look as far as the extensive use of RealNetworks' technology in 
the pervasive Internet coverage of the events of September 11th to 
see how important and pervasive such technologies are becoming.
    alNetworks offers a universal platform designed to provide the 
highest quality digital media creation, delivery, playback and 
security experience across multiple operating systems, transport 
technologies, media formats and digital devices. This RealSystem 
technology works on over 20 different operating systems (e.g., Unix, 
Linux, Windows, Solaris, AIX, HP/UX, Symbian), delivers and plays 
over 50 different formats or datatypes (e.g., MP3, MPEG-1, MPEG-2, 
MPEG-4, Quicktime, Macromedia Flash, RealAudio, RealVideo), and 
works with a wide variety of digital devices (e.g., personal 
computers, Sony PlayStation2, Hewlett Packard's Digital 
Entertainment Center, Nokia cell phones, portable music players and 
personal digital assistants). Applications built using RealNetworks' 
technology are operating system independent, so that consumers, 
content providers, businesses, network operators, and others using 
such applications do not need to install Windows operating systems 
on either their personal computers or on the servers that deliver 
media.
    The opportunities for digital media are enormous. The current 
U.S. market for audio and visual media amounts to over $200 billion 
per year.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\See ``Market Opportunity'' Adapted from 
source: Kagan World Media estimates 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Current estimates for spending in the streaming digital media 
sector alone exceed $10 billion by 2010.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\See ``Streaming Media Market Growth,'' 
Source: Paul Kagan Associates Streaming Media Investor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The pace of innovation and adoption of digital media is rapidly 
increasing as more content is digitized, more consumer electronics 
equipment supports digital formats and broadband growth continues to 
accelerate. By 2007, there will be an estimated 120 million 
streaming media users in the U.S. alone.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\See ``Total Active Streaming Media Users,'' 
Source: Kagan World Media, June 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are over 10 million broadband customers in the U.S., a 
number expected to grow to over 35 million by 2006.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\See ``Consumer Broadband Adoption Blooms over the 
Next Five Years,'' Source: Jupiter MMXI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Broadband use is important because it greatly improves and 
facilitates streaming media resulting in significantly higher 
streaming media usage rates.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\See ``Percent of U.S. home Internet users 
accessing streaming media,'' Source: Nielsen/NetRatings, July 
2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    III. THE COURT HAS BROAD AUTHORITY TO ENSURE THAT THE REMEDY 
IMPOSED PROHIBITS MICROSOFT FROM AGAIN LIMITING THE DEVELOPMENT OF 
MIDDLEWARE IN AN ILLEGAL MANNER.
    In affirming the trial court's holding that Microsoft illegally 
maintained its operating system monopoly, the Court of Appeals 
broadly condemned a wide range of actions through which Microsoft 
attempted to reduce usage of competing middleware products.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\See Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 60. Assistant Attorney 
General Charles A. James acknowledged that this was a middleware 
case, a middleware case, a middleware case. Mark Wigfield, Antitrust 
Chief Defends Government's Settlement with Microsoft, DOW JONES 
NEWSWIRES, Nov. 16, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the reasoning of the Court of Appeals' decision, actions 
taken by Microsoft that have the effect of hindering competing 
middleware developers from gaining the critical mass of users 
necessary to attract developer attention away from Windows as the 
platform for software development--;other than Microsoft's 
efforts to improve the quality of its own products violate Section 2 
of the Sherman Act.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\Id. at 60, 62.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Among other things, the court condemned Microsoft's conduct that 
falls within the following four broad categories: (1) licensing 
restrictions limiting the ability of personal computer original 
equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to configure their personal computers 
in the manner they determine to be appropriate;\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\Id. at 59-;64.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Microsoft's design of the Windows operating systems and 
Microsoft Middleware in a manner that limits the ability of OEMs and 
consumers to remove Middleware code from the operating 
system;\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\Id. at 64-;67.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) Microsoft's entry into exclusive contracts designed to limit 
usage of competing middleware products\12\ and (4) 
Microsoft's threats and intimidation designed to limit the 
development and distribution of middleware.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\Id. at 70-;73, 75-;76.
    \13\Id. at 77-;78.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In condemning Microsoft's actions, the Court of Appeals rejected 
Microsoft's assertions that integrating Middleware into the 
operating system or otherwise attempting to keep developers focused 
upon its APIs somehow provides any procompetitive justification for 
Microsoft's actions.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\See id. at 71.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A. The Breadth Of The Court Of Appeals' Liability Holding 
Demands Imposition Of Broad Remedies
    The guiding principles underlying our antitrust laws make clear 
that the broad grounds of liability affirmed by the Court of Appeals 
demand imposition of an even broader range of remedies. The Supreme 
Court has repeatedly held that, in enacting the Sherman Act, 
Congress sought to ``preserv[e] free and unfettered competition 
as the rule of trade.''\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United States, 356 
U.S. 1, 4 (1958). See also National Society of Professional 
Engineers v. United States, 435 U.S. 679, 692 (1978); United States 
v. Crescent Amusement Co., 323 U.S. 173, 187 (1944).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This need to safeguard free competition is a direct result of 
the fundamental premise of our economic system that unrestrained 
interaction of competitive forces will yield the best allocation of 
our economic resources, the lowest prices, the highest quality and 
the greatest material progress, while at the same time providing an 
environment conducive to the preservation of our democratic 
political and social institutions.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\Northern Pacific Railway, 356 U.S. at 4. See also 
National Society of Professional Engineers, 435 U.S. at 695.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This policy is embodied in two types of legal 
standards--;those applied to the liability phase of antitrust 
cases and those governing the relief phase. As the Supreme Court has 
observed, the formulation of adequate remedies is the most 
significant phase of the

[[Page 28559]]

case.\17\ Courts have broad discretion during the relief phase to 
ensure that the antitrust remedies imposed ``effectively pry 
open to competition a market that has been closed by 
defendants'' illegal restraints.''\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\United States v. Glaxo Group, Ltd., 410 U.S. 52, 64 
(1973).
    \18\International Salt Co. v. United States, 332 U.S. 
392, 401 (1947). See also 2 P.A REEDA & H. H OVENKAMP, A 
NTITRUST LAW 325 (2000) [hereinafter A REEDA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An antitrust decree must ``break up or render impotent the 
monopoly power found to be in violation of the 
Act.''\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 577 
(1966). See also United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 391 
U.S. 244, 251 (1968); Schine Chain Theatres, Inc. v. United States, 
334 U.S. 110, 128-;29 (1948).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In other words, the decree must leave the defendant without the 
ability to resume the actions which constituted the antitrust 
violation in the first place.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\United States v. AT&T, 552 F. Supp. 131, 151 
(D.DC 1982), aff'd sub nom., Maryland v. United States, 460 U.S. 
1001 (1983).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, the decree should not be limited to past 
violations; it must also effectively foreclose the possibility that 
similar antitrust violations will occur or recur. As the Court noted 
in International Salt, it is not necessary that all of the 
untraveled roads to [anticompetitive conduct] be left open and that 
only the worn one be closed. The usual ways to the prohibited goals 
may be blocked against the proven transgressor.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\International Salt, 332 U.S. at 400. See also 
National Society of Professional Engineers, 435 U.S. at 
697-;98; United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 340 U.S. 
76, 88 (1950); Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1, 22 
(1945); Crescent Amusement, 323 U.S. at 188; United States v. United 
Shoe Machinery Corp., 110 F. Supp. at 346-;47.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In evaluating the adequacy of an antitrust remedy, the court's 
inquiry necessarily looks forward, considering evidence that was not 
necessarily placed in the trial record and, indeed, may not have 
even been in existence at the time of trial.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\2 A REEDA at 325c.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is long settled that the Court may at the relief stage 
prohibit practices that have not been found unlawful if such a 
prohibition is necessary to avoid the recurrence of 
monopolization.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 110 F. 
Supp. 295, 346-;47 (D. Mass. 1953), aff'd, 347 U.S. 521 (1954). 
See also Hartford-Empire Co. v. United States, 323 U.S. 386, 409 
(1945).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, restraints may be imposed upon the defendant that 
are designed to allow the development of nascent competition within 
the relevant market.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\Ford Motor Co. v. United States, 405 U.S. 562, 575, 
578 (1972).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Such a remedy is critical here, given the Court of Appeals' 
explicit conclusions regarding the nascent potential of middleware 
to erode the applications barrier to entry that protects Microsoft's 
operating system monopoly.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\253 F.3d at 53-;55.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    B.The Antitrust Procedures And Penalties Act Authorizes The 
Court To Engage In A Broad Inquiry To Determine The Adequacy Of The 
Proposed Decree
    Congress has directed the Court here to determine whether entry 
of the RPFJ is in the public interest. In making that determination, 
the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act authorizes the Court to 
undertake a wide-ranging inquiry into two broad areas of evaluation. 
First, the Court is to consider the competitive impact of the 
proposed consent decree, including whether the proposed decree would 
actually terminate the defendant's violations and whether the 
proposed decree's enforcement provisions are adequate. In making 
this determination, the statute expressly authorizes the court to 
consider the anticipated effectiveness of alternative remedies, as 
well as any other considerations bearing upon the adequacy of such 
judgment.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\15 U.S.C. 16(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the statute authorizes the court to consider the impact 
of the proposed decree on the public generally and on those 
individuals harmed by Microsoft's violations of the Sherman Act.\27\ 
Highly relevant to both of these areas of inquiry is the clarity 
ofthe proposed decree. As the Court of Appeals has recognized, the 
district judge who must preside over the implementation of the 
decree is certainly entitled to insist on that degree of precision 
concerning the resolution of known issues as to make [her] task, in 
resolving subsequent disputes, reasonably manageable.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\Id. at 16(e)(2).
    \28\United States v. Microsoft Corp., 56 F.3d 1448, 
1461-;62 (DC Cir. 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this way, Congress intends the courts to be an 
``independent force'' in reviewing the adequacy of 
proposed consent decrees.\29\ As broad as this language is, it is 
clear that the statute which references alleged violations rather 
than violations proven at trial, as well as benefits to be derived 
from a determination of the issues at trial\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act: Hearings on 
S. 782 and S.1088 Before the Subcomm. on Antitrust and Monopoly of 
the Senate Comm. On the Judiciary, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. 1 (1973) 
(statement of Sen. Tunney).
    \30\See id. at 16(e)(1-;2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    --;primarily contemplates review of consent decrees settling 
claims that have not yet been adjudicated. Where, as here, federal 
and state antitrust enforcers have actually proven during the course 
of a 76-day bench trial that Microsoft illegally maintained its 
operating system monopoly in violation of the Sherman Act, and that 
holding has been affirmed on appeal, the court's powers of review 
are at their maximum level. Unlike Judge Sporkin's review of the 
DOJ's previous, ill-fated consent decree with Microsoft, which 
settled claims that had not been proven, this is not a case in which 
the court's review will implicate the DOJ's prosecutorial discretion 
in framing the complaint and in appraising whether to pursue its 
claims through trial, nor does it raise the constitutional concerns 
of impinging upon the prosecutorial discretion of the executive 
branch.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\See United States v. Microsoft Corp., 56 F.3d at 
1455, 1457-;59. and ensure that there remain no practices 
likely to result in monopolization in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the Court's determination here is concerned solely with 
the proper extent of the remedies to be imposed to redress proven 
violations of the Sherman Act, the Court's evaluation of this 
proposed decree should be guided by the well-settled principles 
governing the adequacy of antitrust remedies. As set forth below, 
careful review of the proposed consent decree demonstrates that it 
falls woefully short of meeting these standards, which were 
reflected in the Court of Appeals' admonition that the remedy for 
Microsoft's illegal acts must seek to unfetter [the] market from 
anti-competitive conduct, to terminate the illegal monopoly, deny to 
the defendant the fruits of its statutory violation,\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\253 F.3d at 103 (quoting Ford Motor, 405 U.S. at 577, 
and United Shoe Machinery, 391 U.S. at 250).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IV. THE RPFJ NEITHER FREES THE MARKET FROM MICROSOFT'S 
ANTICOMPETITIVE CONDUCT NOR DENIES MICROSOFT THE FRUITS OF ITS 
ILLEGAL CONDUCT.
    The RPFJ fails to satisfy the Court's clear and simple standard. 
The RPFJ neither terminates Microsoft's illegal monopoly nor denies 
it the fruits of its statutory violations. It fails to ensure that 
no practices remain that are likely to result in future 
monopolization. Certainly, Microsoft's current dominance in the 
browser market for personal computers is a fruit of its illegal 
conduct. The RPFJ reads like a tacit approval of Microsoft's newly 
imposed browser monopoly; indeed, it is not even mentioned in the 
DOJ's Competitive Impact Statement (CIS). Nor does the CIS address 
how the RPFJ is designed to terminate the illegal monopoly or 
restore JAVA to the position it would have held absent the illegal 
conduct. The CIS is silent regarding the market conditions that 
would currently exist were it not for Microsoft's anticompetitive 
acts market conditions that should be restored as part of any 
adequate remedy. The RPFJ fails to understand and address the long-
term impact of Microsoft's conduct.
    Moreover, the RPFJ's provisions are vague, internally 
inconsistent and replete with exceptions and loopholes that will 
allow a determined and proven illegal monopolist to delay and even 
avoid the remedies. Indeed, the many instances in which the CIS 
reads into the RPFJ substantial additional terms/restrictions 
necessary to create a reasonable interpretation of the provisions 
foreshadows the difficulty of enforcing the RPFJ. Disagreements at 
this stage between the parties to the RPFJ will pale in comparison 
to the disagreements that will arise between Microsoft on the one 
hand and antitrust regulators and impacted parties on the other hand 
as the Court seeks to enforce the RPFJ. Because it provides 
insufficient remedies relating to middleware, OEM/ISV flexibility, 
information disclosure and enforcement, it is likely that Microsoft 
will be able to continue with many of its current anticompetitive 
practices virtually unchanged. In addition, it in effect imposes 
upon Microsoft's competitors several restrictions and conditions on 
doing business and innovating that do not exist today. This 
following discussion outlines only some of the deficiencies in the 
RPFJ. It is not intended to

[[Page 28560]]

be an exhaustive review of the deficiencies and implications of the 
proposed settlement.
    A. The RPFJ's Definitions Are Confusing, Inadequate And Create
    Loopholes And Exceptions To The Actual Remedial Provisions.
    Unfortunately, the definitions set forth in the RPFJ severely 
undermine the RPFJ's proposed remedies by offering a number of 
significant loopholes and exceptions to the application of the 
remedial provisions. By contrast, the Litigating States have 
proposed a set of definitions that do not allow Microsoft to avoid 
application of the remedial provisions and that are designed to 
create a more certain and fair remedial framework. A sample of some 
of the more obvious definitional problems are addressed below.
    1. Incredibly, the definition of ``Windows Operating System 
Product'' states that: The software code that comprises a 
Windows Operating System Product shall be determined by Microsoft in 
its sole discretion. This provision appears to allow Microsoft to 
avoid any future claim for illegally tying applications to the 
operating system, which clearly could not have been the DOJ's intent 
nor would this be consistent with established legal doctrine 
concerning illegal tying. However, as written, Microsoft could 
declare that Microsoft Office, including Word and Excel, is part of 
the operating system with apparent impunity. This provision also 
allows Microsoft to gerrymander whether a given set of functions 
will be placed in the operating system, middleware or an application 
depending on whether Microsoft is attempting to avoid the 
requirements of the remedies. For example, because Microsoft need 
only disclose APIs relating to Microsoft Middleware, Microsoft could 
declare that applications that would otherwise qualify as Microsoft 
Middleware are instead part of the operating system. This provision 
creates a serious loophole in the RPFJ and also conflicts with the 
definitions for middleware contained in the RPFJ.
    There is no indication in the CIS as to how these issues would 
be addressed under the RPFJ. 2. The definition of Timely Manner 
leaves it to Microsoft to decide when it will disclose APIs. Because 
it is triggered by the date Microsoft first releases a beta version 
of its operating system to more than 150,000 testers, Microsoft can 
simply limit the number of testers to 149,999 and thereby avoid 
disclosing APIs until it is too late for competing ISVs to make 
effective use of the information. This is strikingly easy to 
manipulate. By contrast, the Litigating States have proposed a 
reasonable solution that generally requires Microsoft to disclose 
information to third parties at the same time it makes the 
information available to its own developers or to any third party, 
reflecting the importance of early access to APIs to foster fair 
competition.
    3. The definition of Microsoft Middleware, upon which the 
application of Sections III.D (Information Disclosure) and III.G.2 
(Exclusive Dealing) depend, is designed to exclude a large body of 
Microsoft middleware. Moreover, there is a confusingly similar, 
though subtly different, definition for Microsoft Middleware 
Product. Incredibly, under the definition of Microsoft Middleware, 
Microsoft may even argue that the Windows Media Player 8.0 does not 
constitute Microsoft Middleware, despite the trial court's 
recognition that media players are middleware,\33\ because it is no 
longer distributed separately from the operating system.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\84 F. Supp. 2d at 78, 104-;114.
    \34\Although previous versions of the Windows Media 
Player are distributed separately from the Windows operating 
systems, Microsoft now requires consumers to purchase Windows XP to 
acquire Windows Media Player 8.0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The consequence of this provision is that Microsoft would not 
have to disclose any APIs relating to any middleware that is not 
Microsoft Middleware. Moreover, Microsoft could freely engage in 
exclusive dealing with IAPs and ICPs with respect to such middleware 
under Section III.G.2 because that provision relates only to 
Microsoft Middleware. Microsoft should be required to clearly state 
its position in this regard before the efficacy of the remedy can be 
judged.
    4. The definition of Microsoft Middleware Product, which is 
pivotal to a number of provisions relating to middleware relief 
(e.g., III.C, III.G., III.H, definition of Microsoft Platform 
Software), contains substantial loopholes and exceptions. For 
example, Microsoft Middleware Products must be Trademarked or they 
are free of the RPFJs remedial provisions. The definition of 
Trademarked is itself problematic, as described below. Any product 
using a generic or descriptive word with the trademarks Microsoft 
and/or Windows would not be a Microsoft Middleware Product. There is 
no valid, pro-competitive reason to apply a remedy according to how 
Microsoft chooses to name its middleware. In addition, the Microsoft 
Middleware Product is limited to Microsoft middleware that was 
distributed separately in the past year and is similar in 
functionality to other middleware on the market. Thus, if 
Microsoft's middleware is first to market, it could be argued that 
it is not a Microsoft Middleware Product. This creates unnecessary 
ambiguity, and the rationale for this loophole is unclear. It is 
also unclear why the definition of Microsoft Middleware Product is 
limited to functionality provided by certain products, rather than 
the products themselves. Microsoft can use this subtlety to further 
limit the application of the RPFJ's remedial provisions.
    5. The definition for Non-Microsoft Middleware Product is 
unreasonably limited to products of which more than one million 
copies were distributed in the prior year. This is a huge number of 
copies (and affected consumers) that will take a great deal of time, 
money and resources for most middleware companies to reach. This 
will allow Microsoft to engage in its anticompetitive acts against 
small middleware providers during their most vulnerable beginnings. 
Moreover, if a middleware distributor delivered 900,000 copies year 
after year to new customers, they would never be protected under the 
settlement despite the fact that they may have millions of 
customers. This provision is distinctly anti-innovation, because it 
allows Microsoft to deny technology access to small, entrepreneurial 
companies with innovative new technologies--;just the type of 
company Microsoft was in its earliest days. Finally, the RPFJ does 
not 14 address how new versions of existing middleware products will 
be counted. Must they accumulate one million distributions of each 
new version before they are protected? This type of unanswered 
question creates substantial ambiguity and room for disagreement 
going forward.
    6. The definition of Top-Level Window is limited to windows that 
have their own window controls, like move and resize, enable sub-
windows, and contain user interface elements under the control of at 
least one independent process. This definition is critical because 
it determines whether middleware is entitled to certain remedial 
provisions pursuant to Section III.H of the RPFJ. This loophole 
allows Microsoft substantial control over whether competing 
middleware will get the benefit of the remedies. Microsoft could 
engineer its middleware to launch without using all of the Top-Level 
Window components and argue that competing middleware cannot avail 
itself of the remedy. Whether or not Microsoft's middleware enables 
sub-windows certainly should not be the determining factor as to 
whether competing middleware is entitled to a remedy.
    7. The definition of Trademarked does not include [a]ny product 
distributed under descriptive or generic terms or a name comprised 
of the Microsoft and/or Windows trademarks together with descriptive 
or generic terms. This definition is critically important because 
whether any Microsoft product can be Microsoft Middleware or a 
Microsoft Middleware Product inexplicably depends upon whether the 
product is Trademarked. Under the definition, products named 
Microsoft Windows Radio, Microsoft Windows TV, Microsoft Windows 
Theater, Microsoft Windows Music, etc. arguably could not be either 
Microsoft Middleware or Microsoft Middleware Products, regardless of 
functionality because they would not be Trademarked. The inclusion 
of the requirement that any Microsoft Middleware or Microsoft 
Middleware Product be Trademarked before it is included in the 
definition provides Microsoft a handy loophole to avoid the RPFJ's 
remedial provisions. The Litigating States have not allowed this 
type of loophole in their remedy proposal.
    8. The definition of API is unduly narrow and limited to 
Microsoft Middleware rather than including Microsoft Middleware 
Products and other Microsoft applications that call on functionality 
included in, or bundled with, the operating system. The definition 
is circular in that, rather than requiring Microsoft to disclose to 
competing middleware developers the same interfaces and related 
information that it discloses to its own application developers, it 
allows Microsoft to manipulate the interfaces that it will define in 
an API and thereby limit all related information. In addition, the 
related term, Documentation, is also unduly limited to only the 
documentation that Microsoft currently makes available on its 
Microsoft Developer Network (MSDN) network.

[[Page 28561]]

Competing middleware providers should be entitled to all of the 
documentation and information available to Microsoft's application 
developers and in no event less than that typically made available 
on MSDN. B.The RPFJ Does Not Effectively Prevent Microsoft From 
Using Anticompetitive Tactics Against Competing Middleware. The 
Court of Appeals held that Microsoft's restrictions limiting the 
ability of OEMs to configure their personal computers in a manner 
that promotes the use of non-Microsoft middleware violates the 
Sherman Act.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\Id. at 59-;64.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In any effective remedy, OEMs, ISVs and others must be free to 
bundle, distribute and promote non-Microsoft middleware applications 
with their products and completely remove Microsoft middleware. 
They, and end users, must be free to automatically launch competing 
middleware at any time and must be free to set that middleware as 
the default applications under any circumstances, irrespective of 
what Microsoft's middleware does or does not do. Microsoft should 
not be able to use its operating system monopoly to override the 
considered decisions of consumers, OEMs and ISVs without explicit 
consumer consent, or to automatically prompt consumers override such 
choices. Whether Microsoft has competing middleware is utterly 
irrelevant to the threat posed to Microsoft's monopoly operating 
system by middleware and should not form the basis for the many 
exclusions provided in the proposed Settlement. The Litigating 
States have in fact suggested remedies that accomplish these goals 
without providing Microsoft a litany of loopholes. Section III.H 
purports to provide some limited additional freedom to allow OEMs 
and third parties to use competing middleware. Unfortunately, the 
provision is undermined by exceptions and limitations that fail to 
comply with the Court of Appeals' admonitions regarding OEM freedom 
and protection for competing middleware. Section III.H.3 limits 
Microsoft's ability to use its Windows Operating System Product to 
override the freedoms granted to OEMs, but that limitation only 
lasts for fourteen days, after which Microsoft is completely free to 
use its commingled and bundled middleware to override the OEM 
configurations. Microsoft can use this gaping loophole to override 
OEM/consumer choice instantly, automatically, and without notice to 
consumers to OEMs as long as Microsoft does so through its 
commingled middleware, rather than through its operating system. 
Furthermore, a mere fourteen days after an end user starts using his 
or her personal computer, Microsoft can use its monopoly operating 
system to recommend that the user change his or her default settings 
to favor Microsoft middleware to the exclusion of competing 
middleware. Thus, on day fifteen we can expect Windows to start a 
daily process of exhorting the user to reject competing middleware. 
Windows XP currently uses similar behaviors to consistently attempt 
to reclaim default status for its favored Microsoft middleware. For 
example, even after a user has selected competing middleware to play 
back CDs, Windows XP prompts the user to change to Windows Media 
Player when a CD is inserted. The prompt includes Windows Media 
Player as the preselected application at the top of the list.
    The exception provided in the last paragraph of Section III.H. 
limits application of that section to Microsoft Middleware Products 
that exist more than seven months prior to the last beta test 
version of the operating system. This loophole allows Microsoft to 
engineer its releases of new middleware to be less than seven months 
from the final beta in order to completely avoid the remedial 
provisions in Section III.H. For instance, because Windows Media 
Player 8 was released within 7 months of the final beta for Windows 
XP, Microsoft can be expected to argue that competing middleware 
would not be entitled to the protections of Section III.H. 
Certainly, this could not be the intended result of the language and 
the Court must ensure that the parties to the RPFJ clarify the 
interpretation of the exception to avoid such unintended results. 
Oddly, the RPFJ's limitations protect Microsoft's middleware from 
innovative competitors. For instance, Section III.H.2 allows OEMs to 
set competing middleware as the default only if Microsoft has a 
Microsoft Middleware Product that would otherwise launch in its own 
separate Top-Level Window. There is no legal or procompetitive 
justification for so limiting OEMs, ISVs or end users based on the 
existence or performance of Microsoft middleware products. As the 
Court of Appeals recognized, middleware is important because it has 
the potential to erode Microsoft's operating system monopoly and the 
applications barrier to entry that protects it.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\Id. at 53-;55.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Conditioning middleware protections on actions within 
Microsoft's control obviously presents Microsoft with the ability to 
manipulate its software design, as it has in the past, in a manner 
that will further impede the development and distribution of 
competing middleware products. Whether Microsoft has competing 
middleware and by extension the performance characteristics of that 
middleware is irrelevant to the nascent threat that middleware poses 
to Microsoft's operating system monopoly and ignores its past 
anticompetitive efforts to harm competing middleware. Third party 
innovators should not be excluded from the application of the RPFJ 
until and Microsoft first develops its own competing product. In the 
CIS, the DOJ states that Microsoft Middleware is the concept that 
triggers Microsoft's obligations, including those relating to 
Microsoft's licensing and disclosure obligations without providing 
any rationale.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\Pl. DOJ's Competitive Impact Statement at 17-;18 
(Nov. 15, 2001) [hereinafter CIS].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The applicability of the remedies set forth in Sections III.C.3, 
H.1 and H.2 should not depend upon the presence or performance of 
Microsoft's middleware in any way, nor should any other provision.
    Section III.H.1 of the RPFJ allows Microsoft to override OEM 
configurations and consumer choice for default middleware as long as 
Microsoft uses one of its own servers to communicate with its own 
competing middleware. This allows Microsoft to use its Passport, 
MSN, Dot.net, Hotmail and other servers to avoid and override the 
explicit choices made by OEMs/ISVs and consumers. Section III.H.1 
has no procompetitive justification and once again places competing 
middleware at an unfair disadvantage. The RPFJ would grant Microsoft 
the right to require consumers who expressly choose to use Non-
Microsoft Middleware to subsequently confirm their choices to 
Microsoft. Some Non-Microsoft middleware products provide consumers 
with an opportunity to choose whether to establish the middleware 
product as the default for certain functions and, if so, to 
authorize the middleware product to protect against attempts by 
Microsoft to override the consumer's choice. Rather than requiring 
Microsoft to honor such consumer choices, Section III.H.2 would 
allow Microsoft to require the consumer to confirm his or her choice 
every time Microsoft attacks it.
    C. The RPFJ Does Not Provide OEMs With Appropriate Freedom To 
Choose Competing Middleware, Remove Microsoft Middleware, And 
Customize The User Interfaces, Menus, Desktop And Other Windows 
Elements.
    The need for an effective remedy that prevents Microsoft from 
illegally abusing its operating system monopoly to harm competitors 
is beyond dispute. The undisputed facts, as found by the trial court 
and affirmed by the Court of Appeals, establish in detail the broad 
power that Microsoft possesses over OEMs and the broad manner in 
which it has abused that power to maintain its monopoly in violation 
of the Sherman Act. As the DOJ and the plaintiff States proved in 
this litigation, Microsoft's operating system monopoly grants it 
tremendous sway over OEMs. For example, in June 1996 Compaq 
executives opined that their firm could not continue in business for 
long without a license for Windows.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\38 84 F. Supp. 2d at 206
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This is consistent with Hewlett Packard's lament to Microsoft in 
March 1997 that [i]f we had a choice of another supplier, based on 
your actions in this area, I assure you [that you] would not be our 
supplier of choice.\39\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\Id. at 214 (bracketed text in original).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on such statements, the trial court found that OEMs had no 
commercially viable alternative to pre-installing the Windows 
operating system on their personal computers.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\Id. at 158.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, Microsoft's power has actually increased since the 
trial court made its findings in 1999: according to the 
International Data Corporation, from 1999 to 2000 Microsoft's share 
of the client operating system market, including Apple's Mac OS, 
increased by 10.6% to 95.4% (when measured by shipment and upgrade 
revenue) and by 11.1% to 92.6% (when measured by new license 
shipments).\41\ As the trial court

[[Page 28562]]

found, Microsoft has used its monopoly power to impose its will on 
OEMs.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\INTERNATIONAL DATA CORPORATION, WORLDWIDE CLIENT AND 
SERVER OPERATING ENVIRONMENTS MARKET FORECAST AND ANALYSIS SUMMARY 
2001-;2005 at 11-;12 (Aug. 2001).
    \42\For example, Microsoft delayed release of Windows 98 
so as to miss the holiday shopping season in 1996 contrary to the 
OEMs' economic interests, as well as Microsoft's own economically 
rational interests solely to ensure that Internet Explorer 4.0 could 
be commingled into the operating system, regardless of the economic 
suffering imposed on OEMs in terms of lost sales. 84 F. Supp. 2d at 
167 (Maritz agreed with Allchin's point that synchronizing the 
release of Windows 98 with Internet Explorer was the only thing that 
makes sense even if OEMs suffer.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, Microsoft has used its monopoly power to force OEMs to 
take its middleware applications with its operating system and, by 
forbidding them to remove or obscure Microsoft middleware, has 
ensured ubiquity for its middleware while increasing the costs of 
competing middleware developers.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\Id. at 203-;08, 213, 241.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, Microsoft has used its power to impose restrictions on 
OEMs that have had the effect of restricting consumer access to 
competing middleware and increasing the costs that competing 
middleware developers must incur to promote their products.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\Id. at 241, 240.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, Microsoft has used its power to threaten and retaliate 
against OEMs that did not accede to its wishes.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\Id. at 230, 235-;38, 241.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, Microsoft has offered OEMs valuable consideration, 
which OEMs must accept in order to remain competitive with other 
OEMs, as a means of coercion in connection with these efforts.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\Id. at 213-;15, 230-;31, 236-;37, 241.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the trial court found, the OEMs obeyed [Microsoft's] 
restrictions because they perceived no alternative to licensing 
Windows for pre-installation on their PCs.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\47 Id. at 215.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result, the trial court concluded that Microsoft's actions 
have stifled innovation by OEMs that might have made Windows PC 
systems easier to use and more attractive to consumers,\48\ which is 
diametrically opposed to Microsoft's legitimate interests as an 
operating system developer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\48 Id. at 241.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Plainly, any effective remedy for Microsoft's anticompetitive 
conduct must put an end to such practices. The RPFJ, however, falls 
woefully short of either unfettering OEMs from Microsoft's control 
or ensuring that Microsoft will not continue to impose restrictions 
on OEMs that harm the development of competing middleware.
    1. The RPFJ does not require Microsoft to allow OEMs to remove 
its middleware from Windows
    The RPFJ does not even allow OEMs and end users to completely 
uninstall and remove Microsoft's middleware once they have acquired 
the bundled products. In affirming the trial court's conclusion that 
Microsoft illegally maintained its operating system monopoly in 
violation of the Sherman Act, the Court of Appeals twice held that 
Microsoft's design of Windows in a manner that denied OEMs the 
ability to remove middleware specifically, Internet Explorer from 
Windows operating systems is anticompetitive because it deters OEMs 
from pre-installing rival browsers, 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.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\253 F.3d at 64-;66.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, the Court explicitly rejected Microsoft's assertions 
that such integration is highly efficient and provides substantial 
benefits to customers and developers, concluding instead that See 
also Order (DC Cir. Aug, 2, 2001)(per curiam)(denying Microsoft's 
petition for rehearing on the commingling issue). Indeed, in denying 
Microsoft's petition for rehearing on this issue in the clearest 
possible terms, the Court pointedly advised the parties that 
[n]othing in the Court's opinion is intended to preclude the 
District Court's consideration of remedy issues. Id. Microsoft was 
simply protect[ing] its operating system monopoly from a middleware 
threat in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\253 F.3d at 66-;67.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notwithstanding the clarity of the Court's ruling on this issue, 
the RPFJ would essentially endorse Microsoft's anticompetitive 
commingling of its own middleware into Windows in a manner that 
prevents OEMs from removing it from the operating system. This is 
not an idle concern because Microsoft still prevents OEMs from 
removing middleware, such as Internet Explorer and the Windows Media 
Player, from the Windows operating systems. Nor would the 
deceptively named add/remove remedy enable OEMs or consumers to 
actually remove Microsoft middleware functionality or even disable 
the middleware, as it simply hides icons without actually removing 
the middleware code from the operating system. With the middleware 
code intact, there are many ways in which Microsoft's middleware can 
still be launched and take default status for all middleware 
functions. Without appropriate remedies like those proposed by the 
Litigating States, Microsoft will leverage its ability to bundle and 
bind its middleware with every copy of the operating system to 
attempt to convince developers to write to the Microsoft's 
middleware APIs rather than competing middleware APIs. Allowing 
Microsoft to commingle its middleware and refusing to allow OEMs to 
remove Microsoft middleware flies directly in the face of the Court 
of Appeals decision. 2. The RPFJ enshrines, rather than prohibits, 
Microsoft's ability to require OEMs to provide access to Microsoft 
Middleware while restricting the end-user access that OEMs can 
provide for Non-Microsoft Middleware The findings of fact in this 
litigation establish beyond dispute that Microsoft has required OEMs 
to include certain icons, Start Menu entries and other forms of end-
user access for Microsoft middleware products while it has at the 
same time restricted the ability of OEMs to promote competing 
middleware products during the Windows operating system boot 
sequence.\51\ Specifically, the trial court found that, in the 
spring of 1996, Microsoft imposed a series of new operating system 
licensing restrictions on OEMs explicitly intended to restrict the 
ability of OEMs to reconfigure the Windows operating system desktop 
and boot sequence in a manner that would improve usage of non-
Microsoft middleware. These restrictions included the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\84 F. Supp. 2d at 203.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, Microsoft formalized the prohibition against removing any 
icons, folders, or ``Start'' menu entries that Microsoft 
itself had placed on the Windows desktop. Second, Microsoft 
prohibited OEMs from modifying the initial Windows boot sequence. 
Third, Microsoft prohibited OEMs from installing programs, including 
alternatives to the Windows desktop user interface, which would 
launch automatically upon completion of the initial Windows boot 
sequence. Fourth, Microsoft prohibited OEMs from adding icons or 
folders to the Windows desktop that were not similar in size and 
shape to icons supplied by Microsoft.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\52 Id. at 213.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Indeed, Microsoft went so far as to threaten to terminate 
Compaq's operating system license based on its removal of such icons 
for Microsoft's Internet-related middleware products.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\Id. at 204-;08.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Court of Appeals broadly condemned such actions, which 
reduce usage of competing middleware products, not by improving 
[Microsoft's] own product but, rather, by preventing OEMs from 
taking actions that could increase rivals' share of usage.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\253 F.3d at 60-;64.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notwithstanding these clear legal findings and conclusions, 
Section III.C of the RPFJ allows Microsoft to continue to retain 
considerable control over how and whether OEMs can make competing 
middleware accessible to consumers of its personal computers through 
display of icons, menu entries and shortcuts. Section III.C.1 allows 
Microsoft to set rules restricting the manner in which OEMs display 
icons, menu entries and shortcuts for non-Microsoft middleware. The 
discretion afforded to Microsoft provides it with yet another method 
of limiting the prominence that OEMs can assign to competing 
middleware on personal computers running Windows operating systems. 
Section III.C.1 allows Microsoft to dictate which Non-Microsoft 
middleware can be accessible in which places in the Windows 
operating systems, without justifying its functionality-based 
distinctions. There is no valid, pro-competitive reason to take this 
control away from OEMs. As the trial court found, [s]ince OEMs share 
Microsoft's interest in ensuring that consumers can easily find the 
features they want on their Windows PC systems, Microsoft would not 
have prohibited OEMs from removing icons, folders, or Start' menu 
entries if its only concern had been consumer satisfaction.\55\ Nor 
does the RPFJ protect the ability of OEMs to choose which middleware 
products to establish as the default on its personal computers. In 
light of the trial court's finding that Microsoft reduced the 
Windows royalty price for certain OEMs, including Gateway, that set 
Internet Explorer

[[Page 28563]]

as the default browser on their personal computers,\56\ such 
protection is required. The proposed decree, however, safeguards the 
ability of OEMs to designate competing middleware as the default 
only in those situations where the Windows operating system would 
otherwise launch Microsoft's application in a Top-level Window that 
displays all of the user interface elements.\57\ For instance, this 
significant loophole would allow Microsoft to continue to prevent 
OEMs from launching competing middleware in a variety of instances 
in which the middleware is invoked as an embedded component in 
another application, like Internet Explorer. Similarly, by allowing 
Microsoft to prevent OEMs from launching any non-Microsoft 
middleware product that does not display a user interface or that 
displays a user interface that is similar to or smaller than the 
user interface of Microsoft's middleware product, Section C.3 of the 
proposed settlement would hand Microsoft the ability to exercise 
significant control over the design of middleware products and other 
software applications. This loophole is particularly unjustifiable 
given the trial court's finding that Microsoft had previously 
prohibited OEMs from adding icons or folders to the Windows desktop 
that were not similar in size and shape to icons supplied by 
Microsoft.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\84 F. Supp. 2d at N 222.
    \56\Id. at 231.
    \57\See RPFJ at Section III.H.2.
    \58\84 F. Supp. 2d at 213.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed remedy that endorses, rather than condemns, 
anticompetitive conduct is not in the public interest. More 
generally, there is no procompetitive justification for allowing 
Microsoft, which maintained its operating system monopoly in 
violation of U.S. antitrust law, to have a substantial impact on the 
design decisions of competitors that have been disadvantaged by 
Microsoft's anticompetitive practices. Because these conditions 
would restrict the ability of OEMs to increase the usage of 
middleware products that compete with Microsoft, it is apparent 
that, were they imposed by Microsoft independently, they would be 
found to violate the Sherman Act under the reasoning of the Court of 
Appeals decision.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\See 253 F.3d. at 61-;62.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. The RPFJ does not prohibit Microsoft from continuing to 
threaten and retaliate against OEMs that have resisted doing 
Microsoft's bidding The trial court's findings of fact amply 
document Microsoft's repeated and brazen efforts to threaten and 
retaliate against OEMs when they have resisted doing Microsoft's 
bidding.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\84 F. Supp. 2d at 230 (Microsoft used incentives and 
threats in an effort to secure the cooperation of individual OEMs in 
its efforts to ensure that personal computer users would have ready 
access to Internet Explorer). See also id. at 235-;38 
(describing pressure exerted on Gateway and IBM).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, the trial court concluded that, as part of its 
efforts to ostracize Navigator from the vital OEM distribution 
channel, Microsoft threatened to terminate the Windows license of 
any OEM that removed Microsoft's chosen icons and program entries 
from the Windows desktop or the Start' menu. It threatened similar 
punishment for OEMs who added programs that promoted third-party 
software to the Windows boot' sequence.\61\ Such retaliatory efforts 
extended so far as threatening to terminate Compaq's license for 
Windows 95, demonstrating that Microsoft was prepared to go to the 
brink of losing all Windows sales through its highest-volume OEM 
partner in pursuit of its anticompetitive ends.\62\ Microsoft's 
operating system monopoly enabled it to take such actions with 
impunity, indifferent to the fact that such threats soured 
Microsoft's relations with OEMs and stymied innovation that might 
have made Windows PC systems more satisfying to users.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\Id. at 203.
    \62\Id. at 206, 208.
    \63\Id. at 203.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of this sustained practice of intimidation, the DOJ 
correctly points out that it is critical that the OEMs, through whom 
the large majority of copies of Microsoft's Windows Operating System 
Products reach consumers, are free to choose to distribute and 
promote middleware without interference from Microsoft.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\64 CIS at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The RPFJ, however, fails to place any restriction on Microsoft's 
ability to inflict financial retaliation on OEMs. Indeed, Section 
III.A. of the proposed decree explicitly limits application of its 
anti-retaliation provisions to newly introduced forms of non- 
monetary Consideration. Neither Microsoft nor the DOJ offers any 
justification for failing to restrict Microsoft from employing 
financial penalties to threaten or retaliate against recalcitrant 
OEMs.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\Indeed, the Competitive Impact Statement is notably 
bereft of any attempt to justify Section III.A's failure to prohibit 
financially based threats and retaliation. See id. at 11-;12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, in the face of the extensive record in this litigation 
of Microsoft's past course of threats and retaliation, Section III.A 
does not even prohibit Microsoft from withholding existing forms of 
non-monetary consideration from OEMs that seek to develop, 
distribute or use non-Microsoft middleware, distribute competing 
operating systems, or otherwise seek to exercise their purported 
rights under the RPFJ. Instead, Section III.A applies only to newly 
introduced forms of non- monetary consideration. Such gaping 
loopholes simply cannot be reconciled with the DOJ's assertion that 
Section III.A ensures that OEMs have the contractual and economic 
freedom to make decisions about distributing and supporting non-
Microsoft software products that have the potential to weaken 
Microsoft's personal computer operating system monopoly without fear 
of coercion or retaliation by Microsoft.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\Id. at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Similarly, the RPFJ does not prohibit Microsoft from 
continuing to employ discounts and other financial inducements to 
accomplish its anticompetitive ends The undisputed factual record in 
this case similarly documents Microsoft's extensive use of discounts 
and other financial inducements as a critical component of its 
anticompetitive conduct. For example, it is no longer disputed that 
Microsoft offered IBM substantial benefits, including soft dollars 
and marketing assistance, in return for shipping its systems without 
any software that competed with Microsoft.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\84 F. Supp. 2d at 237.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The trial court also found that Microsoft grant[ed] Hewlett-
Packard and other OEMs discounts off the royalty price of Windows as 
compensation for the work required to bring their respective 
alternative user interfaces into compliance with Microsoft's 
requirements restricting their ability to reconfigure the desktop 
and boot sequence in Windows 95 and Windows 98.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\Id. at 215. See also id. at 213-;14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, Microsoft used incentives and threats in an effort to 
secure the cooperation of individual OEMs to promote the Internet 
Explorer to the exclusion of Navigator.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\Id. at 230.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Indeed, the court found that Microsoft agreed to give OEMs 
millions of dollars in co-marketing funds, as well as costly in-kind 
assistance, in exchange for their carrying out other promotional 
activities for Internet Explorer.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\Id. at 231.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with this, Microsoft reduced the Windows royalty 
price for certain OEMs, including Gateway, that set Internet 
Explorer as the default browser on their personal computers and that 
displayed Internet Explorer's logo and links to Microsoft's Internet 
Explorer update page on their own home pages, and offered to 
compensate Gateway if it would replace Navigator with Internet 
Explorer.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\Id. at 231, 236.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The RPFJ, however, would not prevent Microsoft from continuing 
to use discounts, market development allowances and other such 
programs as part of its efforts to coerce OEMs into favoring 
Microsoft's middleware over competing software. Given the loopholes 
that pervade the proposed decree, Section III.B.3 simply requires 
that Microsoft identify the criteria on which discounts are based 
and make them available to all OEMs covered by the decree. While 
this may somewhat limit Microsoft's ability to discriminate among 
OEMs, it does not prevent Microsoft from using such inducements to 
coerce OEMs into discriminating against competing middleware 
products.
    For example, the RPFJ would not prevent Microsoft granting 
discounts or other financial benefits to all OEMs that ship 
Microsoft middleware products as the default on their personal 
computers. This would place any OEM that wanted to establish 
middleware as the default at a potentially serious disadvantage 
compared to any competing OEMs that take the Microsoft payoff. 
Moreover, because Microsoft controls pricing of its monopoly 
operating system, it could establish the price of versions of 
Windows without its middleware set as the default at some 
artificially high price and use the difference between the 
artificially high price and the actual price Microsoft wanted to 
receive as a cash incentive to pay OEMs to carry Microsoft's 
middleware as the

[[Page 28564]]

default application. This does not correct the present judicially 
condemned situation.
    D.The RPFJ Contains Insufficient Provisions To Ensure Adequate 
And Timely Information Disclosure
    Microsoft has a history of refusing to disclose APIs, delaying 
disclosure of APIs, and selectively disclosing APIs to favored ISVs 
at the expense of disfavored ISVs.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\Id. at 90-;92.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, Microsoft has refused to disclose APIs relating to 
Secure Audio Path (SAP)\73\ and has actively used its 
exclusive access to this technology to market against its 
competitors beginning at least as far back as October 2000. The RPFJ 
does not end this type of head start and exclusive access. Microsoft 
uses its control over Windows interfaces to thwart competition from 
better, more compelling middleware applications. For instance, 
Microsoft has refused to disclose critical interface and other 
technical information used by it in Windows XP relating to a number 
of functions, including direct access to SAP and to the Play all and 
Burn CD features in the My Music folder. Access to all of the APIs 
and technical interfaces available in the monopoly Windows OS is 
critical to ISVs and should be in Microsoft's best interest given 
its stated top goal of providing a platform upon which all ISVs can 
build. Because of Microsoft's past anticompetitive behavior, it is 
important to have a clear and broad remedy provision requiring full 
disclosure of any technical interfaces, appropriately defined, 
between Microsoft's operating system, bundled middleware and any 
other Microsoft applications. The RPFJ contains several major 
exceptions and loopholes that allow Microsoft to delay and avoid 
disclosing the technical information necessary to allow competing 
middleware providers to fully interoperate with Microsoft's 
software. Section III.D of the RPFJ only requires Microsoft to 
disclose APIs relating to Microsoft Middleware a very narrowly 
defined term that does not include any middleware bundled with the 
operating system (unless separately distributed as an update). This 
subtlety in the RPFJ allows Microsoft to easily avoid the 
information disclosure requirements. As long as Microsoft bundles 
its middleware with its operating system, rather than distributing 
it separately, it will no doubt argue that there is no information 
disclosure requirement, although that would seem contrary to the 
intent of the RPFJ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\Secure Audio Path is a technology designed to 
maintain the security of a file as it moves through the operating 
system for eventual playback by a sound card. It is designed to 
prevent interception of secure content along the route to the sound 
card. Microsoft has been exhorting content providers to use its 
Windows Media middleware in part because of its exclusive access to 
Secure Audio Path.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Limiting Section III.D to Microsoft Middleware makes it easy for 
Microsoft to avoid disclosing APIs for a host of features and 
functions made available to Microsoft's application developers. This 
is especially true given the fact that the RPFJ allows Microsoft, in 
its sole discretion, to decide what is in the operating system and 
what is not. This provides virtually unlimited opportunity for 
gerrymandering. There is certainly no procompetitive justification 
for this restriction. The Litigating States' proposed remedy, on the 
other hand, requires Microsoft to provide all APIs that are used by 
Microsoft's own application developers to interoperate with either 
the operating system or middleware. It does not provide a complex 
web of limitations and restrictions that are bound to create further 
unnecessary litigation. The provision regarding server 
interoperability excludes communications between Microsoft 
Middleware Products even those that are commingled and bound with 
the Windows operating system--;and Microsoft servers. This is an 
enormous loophole. As written, Microsoft is likely to argue that the 
provision does not allow ISVs to obtain any access to Microsoft's 
communications protocols between Microsoft servers and applications 
such as Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player and instant 
messaging. Again, this does not seem consistent with the intent of 
the RPFJ.
    In an amazing reversal of fortune, the RPFJ would actually 
require law-abiding ISVs to license their technology to Microsoft an 
illegal monopoly if they want to take advantage of Microsoft's APIs. 
The fact that an ISV might license and use technology from 
Microsoft, as allowed under the proposed settlement, should not 
entitle Microsoft to get a license to the ISV's technology relating 
to the exercise of their options or alternatives. By ensuring that 
Microsoft will obtain contractual rights to technologies that it 
deems to be strategic, the RPFJ provides assistance to Microsoft's 
continuing anticompetitive efforts to restrict the development and 
distribution of competing middleware by bundling its own versions of 
those technologies with its operating system in an attempt to 
dominate the market to the detriment of its more innovative 
competitors. Because Microsoft is not doing any development on 
behalf of the ISVs as part of the RPFJ, it does not need licenses to 
ISV technology to perform its obligations. This provision in effect 
operates as a poison pill that presents substantial disincentives 
for competing middleware developers to qualify for the protection of 
the very provisions of the RPFJ that are designed to foster 
competition in these nascent markets.
    Microsoft Can Continue Its Anticompetitive Practices For Up To 
One Year And Intends To Do So.
    The RPFJ's time periods for Microsoft's compliance with a 
variety of provisions, including those related to information 
disclosure, place competing application developers at a serious 
disadvantage. Middleware ISVs should have as much time as 
Microsoft's own application developers to use the APIs and other 
technical information necessary to access, utilize and support the 
full features and functionality offered by the Windows operating 
systems. Indeed, the extended time provided to Microsoft to comply 
with the RPJF is in direct contradiction of one of the DOJ's stated 
reasons for entering into the settlement: prompt relief. For 
example, Microsoft has a full year to comply with the bulk of the 
information disclosure provisions and other provisions related to 
middleware in Sections III.D and H. Microsoft essentially has been 
blessed to continue wield its monopoly power for long periods of 
time to the detriment of consumers and competition. Instead, relief 
should be immediately available. If Microsoft does not have the 
technology ready, it should nevertheless be required to allow others 
to implement the provisions on their own while Microsoft delays 
disclosing the APIs. There is no competitive justification for 
giving Microsoft nine or twelve months to disclose and license 
interfaces that are readily available to, and now in use by, 
Microsoft's own application developers. In fact, Microsoft is 
already relying on the 12 month delay provision to avoid disclosing 
APIs to SAP. Despite repeated requests, Microsoft has not provided 
RealNetworks with any information or even confirmation that it would 
provide access to SAP. In a January 2002 communication to 
RealNetworks, Microsoft simply pointed to the twelve-month time 
frame and claimed it was in compliance.
    F. The RPFJ Does Not Materially Affect Microsoft's Ability To 
Engage In Anticompetitive Exclusive Dealing
    The RPFJ does not effectively prohibit Microsoft from using 
deals with an IAP, ICP, ISV, an independent hardware vendor 
(``IHV''), or OEM to limit competition. Microsoft has long 
relied on such deals in an attempt to limit the development of 
competing middleware solutions. For example, Microsoft has entered 
into agreements specifically limiting or forbidding use of 
middleware that threatens its operating system monopoly. Microsoft 
has entered into agreements requiring independent content providers 
to use technology designed to detect whether the end user has 
Microsoft middleware installed on his or her computer and then using 
that technology to the exclusion of competing middleware, even when 
the consumer had chosen the competing middleware as their default. 
Such conduct flies in the face of Microsoft's own statements that it 
is trying to create a platform for ISVs; Microsoft's actions are 
damaging to any ISV who build competing middleware on Microsoft's 
platform. Section III.G allows Microsoft to demand parity with any 
third party product that Microsoft considers to be a competitor to 
its Platform Software in any deal with an IAP, ICP, ISV, IHV, or OEM 
that distributes, promotes, uses, or supports the third party 
product. This provision seems designed to prevent competitors from 
getting ahead of Microsoft.
    In addition, Microsoft is sure to continue to use its 
investments as a vehicle to demand exclusivity or preference for its 
products to the detriment of competing middleware. Microsoft can 
enter into any agreement with an ISV, IHV, IAP, ICP, or OEM provided 
that each contributes either significant developer or other 
resources prohibiting the entity from competing with the object of 
the agreement for a reasonable (undefined) period of time. This 
would bless and legitimize Microsoft's current anti- competitive 
behavior through which Microsoft leverages other assets to maintain 
its illegal monopoly. Moreover, Microsoft can apparently avoid even 
these

[[Page 28565]]

requirements simply by licensing intellectual property as part of 
the deal (see Section III.G.2). Section G appears to allow Microsoft 
to license third party intellectual property under whatever scenario 
it desires. This presents a gaping loophole to the entire section, 
as does the exception for any joint development or joint services' 
arrangement. Virtually any technology deal could be styled as such.
    The prohibitions of Section III.G.2 are strangely applicable 
only to contracts with IAPs and ICPs (not IHVs, ISV or OEMs) to 
obtain placement in Windows. In fact, it should simply prohibit 
Microsoft from entering any contract conditioned on any third 
party's agreement to refrain from or limit distribution, promotion 
or use of competing middleware. As written, the provision would 
allow Microsoft to require any ISV or IHV to refrain from 
distributing or promoting competing middleware as a condition for 
placement in Windows, or for placement on MSN, or for access to 
Dot.Net or for anything else. Surely, this could not have been the 
intent of the DOJ, yet it is the result of the language in the RPFJ.
    G. The Enforcement Provisions Are Weak And Ineffective
    The Court of Appeals conclusively established that Microsoft is 
an illegal monopolist. Yet, remarkably, Microsoft has not modified 
its anticompetitive behavior in any meaningful way despite the 
Court's clear conclusions, just as previously the consent decree 
entered by the DOJ failed to end Microsoft's anticompetitive 
conduct. The necessary enforcement mechanisms must reflect the harsh 
reality that Microsoft has repeatedly shown its complete disrespect 
for the judicial process and directives of the courts. 
Unfortunately, the enforcement mechanisms in the RPFJ are completely 
ineffectual and are destined to fail. Any conduct-based remedies in 
this complex environment will be effective only to the extent they 
are capable of prompt, rigorous enforcement.
    For instance, the proposed settlement fails to put in place a 
meaningful mechanism for preventing, identifying and resolving 
violations of the proposed agreement in an expedited manner. The 
voluntary dispute resolution mechanism is designed for delay rather 
than deterrence. It is essential that any decree establish clearly 
defined procedures, with prompt, prescribed time deadlines, to 
enable the government and the court to address violations of the 
decree in a full and expeditious manner. By contrast, the 
``voluntary dispute resolution'' provisions of the 
proposed settlement are as inadequate as the name suggests. The only 
``penalty'' for willful and systemic violations of the 
proposed settlement is a one-time, two-year extension on the already 
truncated five-year term, much of which does not even become 
effective for an entire year. The time frames for investigating 
complaints are loose or non-existent, with no clear or prompt 
recourse to the court for resolution. Moreover, the ``Technical 
Committee'' is housed at Microsoft, cannot independently go to 
the court for redress and cannot present any of its findings or 
information to the court, which ensures that the substantial time, 
effort, and expense devoted to the Committee's processes would need 
to be duplicated in future compliance efforts. Inexplicably, 
Microsoft is allowed to appoint a member of the Technical Committee, 
a sort of permanent seat on the security council to oversee its 
overseers. Rather, the proposed decree needs to establish a Special 
Master, that can make prompt recommendations directly to the Court. 
This litigation has been going on for over three years. Microsoft 
has reaped the rewards of its illegal conduct during that time, and 
continues to do so. The RPFJ would provide Microsoft with an 
additional 12 months to comply with several provisions that should 
require immediate compliance. The proposed time frames greatly 
overstate the difficulty of providing ISVs with technical 
information that Microsoft has been using itself to develop 
Middleware and other applications. Any purported hardship imposed by 
more appropriate deadlines would certainly by justified by 
Microsoft's history of illegal conduct. Consumers deserve swift and 
certain relief.
    V.CONCLUSION
    As set forth above, entry of the ambiguous and loophole-laden 
RPFJ would engender significant uncertainty as to its terms and 
actual effect and would, in many respects, potentially assist 
Microsoft in its anticompetitive efforts to restrict the development 
and distribution of competing, innovative middleware. The full 
anticompetitive harm that would result from a failure to effectively 
redress the anticompetitive conduct identified by the Court of 
Appeals cannot, however, be fully understood simply by examining 
Microsoft's anticompetitive conduct to date, as substantial as that 
is. As the trial court found in this litigation, the full effects of 
Microsoft's anticompetitive conduct extend well beyond today's 
consumers of personal computers to chill tomorrow's innovations and 
the new products and markets that such innovations will make 
possible:
    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. . . 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 not coincide with Microsoft's self-
interest.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\84 F. Supp. 2d at V 412.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By contrast, the Court has before it an eminently superior 
remedy proposed by the Litigating States. Bereft of the ambiguity 
and loopholes that benefit the monopolist they are ostensibly 
intended to restrain, the States' proposed remedy highlights the 
extent to which the RPFJ fails to effectively end Microsoft's 
anticompetitive conduct. Forward- looking in scope and 
straightforward in application, the States' proposed remedy is 
appropriately tailored to redress the anticompetitive conduct 
identified by the Court of Appeals, while preserving Microsoft's 
ability to compete with other operating systems and other middleware 
products on the merits.
    For the reasons set forth herein, RealNetworks respectfully 
submits that entry of the RPFJ would not be in the public interest.



MTC-00029306

From: Jessica Hollings
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:44pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The proposed settlement is not in my interest.
    Signed,
    Jessica Hollings
    Athens, Ohio



MTC-00029307

From: CHARLES A. CRAWFORD
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:44pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I ask that the current settlement be followed , and that the 
dissenters be silenced by the court.
    Charles A. Crawford
    [email protected]



MTC-00029308

From: Maggie Hayes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Maggie Hayes
13759 Morningbluff Lane
San Antonio, TX 78216
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Thank you for the exceptional service you have provided our 
country. In the interest of furthering the cause of private 
enterprise, the foundation upon which our country has been built, I 
am compelled to speak out on the Microsoft settlement. As both a 
customer and a stockholder, I hold strong opinions on the outcome of 
this case.
    Microsoft has long been a leader in the technology industry. 
They have earned their place of leadership in the technology 
industry through their focus on excellence. Due to this commitment 
Microsoft has consistently outperformed the competition by providing 
consumers with user-friendly products. As a believer in free 
enterprise I was outraged by the case against Microsoft. Nonetheless 
the resolution of this case is the most important matter at this 
time.
    Enacting the settlement will allow Microsoft to get back to 
business. In addition the stipulations of the settlement will 
benefit users as well. With the release of Windows XP, Microsoft 
will be putting in a new mechanism that will allow users to add and 
delete programs into the system with greater ease. The settlement 
goes above and beyond the original scope of the case. The Justice

[[Page 28566]]

Department must enact the settlement at the end of
    January.
    Sincerely,
    Maggie Hayes



MTC-00029309

From: J. Daniel Moss
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Agreement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    As a citizen, taxpayer, and shareholder concerned with the 
element of fairness, I want you to know that I support the 
settlement agreement worked out between the U.S. Department of 
Justice and Microsoft. I want to add my name to the support enlisted 
for the agreement.
Joseph Daniel Moss
500 Fisher Avenue
Catawissa, PA 17820
1-;570-;356-;2138



MTC-00029310

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:46pm
Subject: Microft Settlement
    In a message dated 1/28/02 6:45:37 PM Central Standard Time, 
[email protected] writes: << 
[email protected] >>
    Below is the letter we have drafted for you based on your 
comments. Please review it and make changes to anything that does 
not represent what you think. If you received this letter by fax, 
you can photocopy it onto your business letterhead; if the letter 
was emailed, just print it out on your letterhead. Then sign and fax 
it to the Attorney General. We believe that it is essential to let 
our Attorney General know how important this issue is to their 
constituents. The public comment period for this issue ends on 
January 28th. Please send in your letter as soon as is convenient.
    When you send out the letter, please do one of the following:
    Fax a signed copy of your letter to us at 
1-;800-;641-;2255;
    Email us at [email protected] to 
confirm that you took action.
    If you have any questions, please give us a call at 
1-;800-;965-;4376. Thank you for your help in this 
matter.
    The Attorney General's fax and email are noted below. Fax: 
1-;202-;307-;1454 or 1-;202-;616-;9937 
Email: [email protected]
    In the Subject line of the e-mail, type Microsoft Settlement.
    For more information, please visit these websites: 
www.microsoft.com/freedomtoinnovate/ www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-
settle.htm
8850 McClellan Boulevard
Anniston, AL 36206-;7548
January 13, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I appreciate the Justice Department finally coming to a 
settlement over the Microsoft issue. The three year long dispute has 
brought up many issues regarding antitrust laws and the tech 
industry. The settlement that was reached represents a good 
compromise. I believe that it should be acceptable to everyone 
involved.
    Now that the Windows'' operating system will be made 
available to producers at a uniform price, computer makers will not 
have to gain favor with Microsoft in order to receive discounted 
prices. This evens the playing field among computer makers. Further 
the review committee that is to be created will guarantee that 
everyone plays fair too.
    The settlement comes at a good time. It represents both sides of 
the issue. The government needs to move on to more important 
matters. Thanks for listening.
    Sincerely yours,
    Harold Hall



MTC-00029311

From: daRcmaTTeR
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    Please do this country a big favor and split them up, take them 
apart...do what ever you have to do to make them play by the same 
rules everyone else has to if you can't put them out of business. 
We're all so tired of watching and being able to do nothing while MS 
gets rich over the dead bodies of smaller companies that are just 
trying to make a living at what they do. MS stinks, their products 
stink and the way in which they treat the end users by marketing and 
selling inferior products stinks! Please give this country and the 
world the Technological enema that it so desperately deserves and 
needs and stick it to Microsoft. Though it won't even begin to make 
up for the way they have stuck it to countless others at least it's 
better then letting them get away with it unpunished.
    Mark Weaver
    Written from A Microsoft FREE environment



MTC-00029312

From: Allan G. Osborne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
5829 NE 198th Place
Kenmore, WA 98028
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I encourage you to support the recent antitrust settlement 
Microsoft has reached with the DOJ. I can only imagine how much this 
lawsuit has cost the little people in this country--;not Bill 
Gates, but the people throughout the country, especially those who 
are in pension funds.
    Furthermore, I feel this attack on success is forcing Microsoft 
to agree to terms that go far beyond the original scope of the 
lawsuit so it can continue to develop software undisturbed by the 
government.
    As an example, Microsoft has agreed to provide the code so 
competitors can alter Windows to remove Microsoft products and to 
install competing products. Furthermore, Microsoft has agreed to 
disclose various interfaces to its competitors--;a first in an 
anti-trust settlement.
    Further, Microsoft has agreed to not force third parties to 
distribute or promote Windows exclusively or as a fixed percentage; 
nor will Microsoft prevent computer makers or software developers 
from developing competing operating systems or software that runs on 
competing operating system.
    For these reasons, I encourage you to support this settlement as 
good for the consumer, and so that Microsoft can return to the 
business of developing good software.
    Sincerely,
    Allan Osborne



MTC-00029313

From: Dolores Dembus
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 10:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dolores Dembus
3133 Connecticut Ave NW
Washington, DC 20008
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 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,
    Dolores Dembus



MTC-00029314

From: Thomas Leszczynski
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 10:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Thomas Leszczynski
4539 Greystone Dr
Richfield, WI 53076-;9405
January 28, 2002
Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 28567]]

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,
    Thomas Leszczynski



MTC-00029315

From: Loyd D. Jacobs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:48pm
Subject: Micrsoft Antitrust Settlement
    I believe the subject settlement is more than fair. Microsoft 
was largely responsible for the tremendous economic gains of the 
1990's. Yet the goose that laid the golden egg is severly attacked. 
By whom? By a gang of competitors who could not compete in a free 
market. By a gang of competitors who met together to costruct a case 
against Microsoft and ask the federal goverment to prosecute it. 
Collusion?
    Yes Microsoft is agressive. In business you do not go far 
without being agressive. Agressive action and words can stir up 
emotional responses, but that does not make them illegal?
    The general public has not been harmed by Microsoft. To the 
contrary. Microsoft has made it easy for the novice to use computer 
systems. They have provided a much needed standard. Compare that to 
the incompatable wireless telephone systems. My wireless telephone 
will not work in Europe. Old time computer users complain about 
Microsoft. They know how to work around computer problems and do for 
themself. The general public does not. Microsoft provides a 
standard, a tool the general public can easily use.
    Bunding. I want blundling. I do not want to buy my operating 
software system a piece at a time. Only special applications do I 
want to buy one piece at a time. I also do not want to make the 
piece by piece selection of what goes in my basic operating system. 
I am not smart enough. Microsoft lets me easily buy a complete 
system that works great.
    Cost. Per line of code, there is no maintaied software package 
that is cheaper.
    Do we really want to put overzealious tethers on the company 
that had a large part in creating the golden egg economic era of the 
1990's. I would think twice about that.
    Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
    Loyd D. Jacobs
    P.S. I am a Boeing retiree.



MTC-00029316

From: RAJESH SATPUTE
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam,
    This settlement is in favour of the public. This settlement is 
good for the industry, economy and above all the nation. As a US 
Citizen I do agree this steelement.
    Regards,
    Raj Satpute



MTC-00029317

From: Hugh Inness-Brown
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 10:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hugh Inness-Brown
5351 State Hwy 37
Ogdensburg, NY 13669
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 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,
    Hugh Inness-Brown



MTC-00029318

From: Swapan Gupta
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We the undersigned would like to submit our comments on the 
Microsoft Settlement before the Antitrust Division. We are 
displeased to note that much effort has been expended by the 
government to listen to envious competitors, who unable to compete 
in the open market, attack a productive company so that its 
innovative ways can be hindered. We have been using Microsoft 
products for over a decade and have never had any complaints about 
their performance. Over the years their products have kept 
improving. We are therefore opposed to any settlement, in which the 
company which has become successful by dint of innovation, is 
penalized for being too successful. We would also like to state for 
the record that as free individuals, participating in the 
marketplace, we have chosen Microsoft products without coercion. 
Therefore we think that it is not the duty of the Government do 
decide or restrict the marketing of Microsoft's products at what 
ever price the market will bear. Also we think that as free 
individuals we have an inalienable right to purchase and keep on our 
computers software of our choice without government interference. In 
other words, the government should not violate our personal 
liberties in the realm of what we can buy and keep in our computer. 
Since the business of Microsoft is producing software, we fail to 
see how it is a threat to anyone. A free market, in essence requires 
that a company be productive and offer a better product at the 
lowest price. Microsoft has been able to do this--;- a testament 
to it's success.
    One important point to note here is that Microsoft has been 
brought to court by its competitors, who when unsuccessful in the 
open market, sought to use government force to not only shackle but 
also to set the terms by which businesses in future must compete in 
the market place. Failed businesses must not be allowed to set the 
terms of the operation of the market place. Penalizing successful 
businesses can only have a chilling effect on future iconoclastic 
businessmen and industrialists from trying to be innovative if they 
conclude that the price of success is the breakup of a company and 
suffering long drawn out court battles and fines and unreasonable 
penalties. The government should foster an environment whereby any 
American entrepreneur with a new idea can start a business by 
upsetting (if required, just as Henry Ford upset the horse and buggy 
industry, or what Edison's invention of the light bulb did to the 
candle makers) current businesses and starting a new field of 
production just as the computer industry replaced and automated many 
labor intensive functions of U. S. industry. After all a business 
has a right to its own property and it is the constitutional duty of 
the government is to secure and protect those rights.
    CC:[email protected]@
inetgw



MTC-00029319

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The free enterprise system in the United States has been the 
catalyst for making the

[[Page 28568]]

United States the greatest country in the world. Within the system, 
there will be winners and losers. Microsoft is perhaps the biggest 
winner of all time; they have created and marketed a product that 
satisfies the needs of an expanding market all over the globe.
    The government has no business meddling into the affairs of 
Microsoft, or any other business. Microsoft used its own ingenuity 
and market know-how to achieve the level of success it has. The 
entire lawsuit between Microsoft and the US government has become a 
forum for Microsoft's competitors to tear a piece of Microsoft's 
success away.
    Microsoft has agreed to permanent government oversight in the 
form of the three-person ``Technical Committee.'' This in 
and of itself should silence most any critic of Microsoft, but the 
settlement also agrees to make trade secrets such as operating 
system protocols and interfaces available to its competition as 
well.
    I have strong reservations about this settlement, but if this is 
what Microsoft wants, than I will support the company. Microsoft 
performed as any company would in the open market, and has been duly 
rewarded. The federal government needs to end the litigation and let 
free enterprise and the market determine the final outcome for 
Microsoft and its competitors.
    Sincerely,
    Richard Kissell
    3903 23rd Ave. W.
    Bradenton, FL 34205



MTC-00029320

From: Howard Hall
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 10:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Howard Hall
9 Josefa Place
Moraga, CA 94556
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 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,
    Howard G. Hall



MTC-00029321

From: barbara ward
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 10:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
barbara ward
box 404
carrizozo, NM 88301
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 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,
    barbara ward



MTC-00029322

From: NANCY LONG
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 10:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
NANCY LONG
3601 CHADSWORTH WAY
SACRAMNETO, CA 95821
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 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,
    NANCY LONG



MTC-00029323

From: Jerome Isham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:57pm
Subject: USAGIsham--;Jerome--;1002--;0125
10047 Main Street Apt #213
Bellevue, WA 98004
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft, DOJ
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    Today I take the time to encourage the Department of Justice to 
accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement. The DOJ and Microsoft 
have slugged this battle out for over three years. It is time to put 
an end to it. A settlement is available and the terms are fair. It 
is rally about time that the government accepted it. In order to put 
this issue behind them, Microsoft has agreed to many terms. They 
have consented to design future versions of Windows to be more 
compatible with non-Microsoft software, making it so that features 
like Explorer and Windows Messaging can be replaced by Netscape and 
IM. They have also agreed to change several aspects in the way they 
do business with computer makers. Microsoft has given up a lot in 
order to settle the issue. It is time for the government--;and 
the courts--;to accept the settlement and move on. Microsoft and 
the technology industry need to move forward, and the only way to 
move forward is to put this issue in the past. Please accept the 
Microsoft antitrust settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Jerome Isham



MTC-00029324

From: Dale Boe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:59pm
Subject: 280 Yew Street Road
280 Yew Street Road
Belingham, WA 98226
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

[[Page 28569]]

Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I wanted to take this moment to write you, during the 60-day 
public comment period, to express my concern on this tedious lawsuit 
plaguing the Microsoft corporation. For the past three years (in its 
most recent version, anyway) Microsoft has concentrated its time, 
energy and money under public and federal scrutiny and it has been 
the unfair and unjustified bullying of an enterprise that built 
itself on American ideals, the dreams that all Americans are made 
of. The current proposed settlement, although harsh on Microsoft, 
needs to be the ending of this lawsuit once and for all. If the case 
goes back to the federal court, not only does the fundamental 
principle of freedom of enterprise fly out this nation's window, but 
our nation's economy will suffer further from the loss of potential 
capital. How can our country criminalize a business that brought 
this world out of the technological ``stone age?'' It is 
beyond me how people that have prospered from Microsoft's success 
are also the ones trying to put them out of business. Is this the 
message we are instilling in our own people that too much success is 
a crime and can legally be taken away from you?
    By accepting the proposed settlement, Microsoft and the American 
consumer can put this behind them, get back to business as usual, 
and keep Microsoft as an investment this country needs to stay at 
the top of the global market.
    Your time and consideration in this matter is greatly 
appreciated and I hope your actions will speak for the American 
people and not the jealous competitors trying to take ingenuity away 
from the Microsoft corporation.
    Sincerely,
    Dale Boe



MTC-00029326

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings.
    I believe in the free enterprise society. Let the inventors 
invent. I want Microsoft to give me the best of the best. I want all 
the components in one pack of software.
    Please let Mr. Gates advance our technology. Stop all the legal 
action against Microsoft.
    Regards,
    Valerie Rogers
    3428 Hillvale Rd
    Louisville, Ky 40241
    502-;423-STAR



MTC-00029327

From: Carol Wray
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 10:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Carol Wray
10133 Ga.Hwy.42 South
Fort Valley, GA 31030-;9313
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 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,
    Carol Wray



MTC-00029328

From: Dave La Bounty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am very much against the proposed Microsoft Antitrust 
Settlement ... it doesn't go far enough to level the playing field 
against Microsoft or in punishing Microsoft. In it's present form, 
it appears that the DOJ proposed settlement (once again) lets 
Microsoft off the hook, and lets them continue their rampant / 
unabaited, unethical, predatory / monopolistic practices ... it's 
ALL in the details and crafting of the words ... by highly paid 
Microsoft lawyers ... once again, there is no ``meat'' to 
it. ``Nothing'' surprises me anymore ... but America and 
the world deserves better. There IS an alternative ... ALL you have 
to do is read the incisive, brilliantly presented descriptions of 
the problems ... and solutions at the following web sites ... to 
realize how woefully inadequate the DOJ settlement proposals truely 
are.
    http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html,
    http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html
    http://www.codeweavers.com/jwhite/tunney.html
    The solutions proposed at these sites have some 
``meat'' to them, and should just be a starting point of 
``minimum necessary requirements''. These proposed 
solutions, would finally, at least, force Microsoft to be more 
forthright and honest. Hire these guys as consultants!!! IF there is 
``any justice'', the DOJ verdict and settlement ought to 
``punish'' Microsoft ``severely'', with more 
than just a weak slap on the wrist ... Microsoft should not continue 
to be ``rewarded'' by the Justice Dept. for their 
continued ``best business practices'' ... business 
practices at their worst.
    I have been supporting Computer hardware / software for 40 years 
from mainframes to PCs, including Microsoft products. There is 
``no room'' in a democratic society ... for software code 
(and a company) that wants to ``imbed'' itself 
``everywhere'' ... to the ``exclusion'' of ALL 
others. This fact is even intuitively obvious to the most casual 
observer ... and also ought to be obvious to a ``US Justice 
Dept'' as well.
    There is no dispute that Microsoft has stifled innovation, 
creativity and competition ... and in the process 
``sucked'' the life out of an Entire industry / culture. 
For years, Microsoft has ``rushed to market'' buggy / 
inept, bloated software code / APIs, applications ... Operating 
systems (OS) ... in order to circumvent previous, WEAK Justice Dept 
settlements.
    Just look at the security flaws in their ``latest & 
greatest'' XP OS ... rushed to market to 
``procreate'' and ``imbed'' itself ... before it 
works ... and before the ``law'' can catch up with it ... 
yet one more time. In Windows 9X, Internet Explorer (IE) was 
blatently imbedded into the Windows OS, with requirements that IE be 
the ``default'' browser in order for OTHER Microsoft) 
applications (such as Outlook) to work properly ... to the exclusion 
of other applications, including Netscape. Microsoft 
``is'' the ultimate blood-sucking virus. It's time to get 
out the RAID ... and a BIG flyswatter ... or gavel!!!
    Surprise me ... do something right ... for a change,
    Dave La Bounty,
    San Jose, Ca,
    Computer Engineer / Technologist (40 years)



MTC-00029330

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lester Ward
5604 Newman Davis Road
Greensboro, NC 27406
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I have been using computers since 1976. That is about adecade 
before even the first PCs. (even before DOS). I could use computers 
even without Microsoft. The question is would I want to do so. 
Imagine the millions of Americans today that use computers and the 
Internet without even a clue as to how difficult things once were.
    I am writing this letter in hopes of restoring some sense to the 
current course of affairs. I sold my Microsoft stock shortly after 
Judge Jackson began to try to write himself into the history books. 
The reason Microsoft is so successful is because we the consumers 
want it to be. I do not want to purchase a menagerie of software 
operating systems and user applications that very likely will not 
work together. I know this started during the Clinton 
Administration. I feel that it is time to put a halt to this auto-
immune attack

[[Page 28570]]

    Microsoft is an important part of the U.S. economy. Please let 
Microsoft get back to software production. In these difficult 
economic times, we need to move forward. I would find it difficult 
to do my job without the innovations that Microsoft has provided. I 
will continue to depend on Microsoft. Microsoft has agreed to a 
settlement that should provide any necessary compliance to 
regulations and prevent any further perceived need for anti-trust 
actions.
    I hope that my opinion makes a difference. Thank you for your 
attention in this matter.
    cc: Representative Howard Coble
    Sincerely,
    Lester Ward



MTC-00029331

From: Kiyoshi Yu
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
Via email: [email protected]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    As a consumer whose activities both at work and at home rely 
heavily upon the use of personal computer software, I welcome the 
chance to comment on the proposed settlement between Microsoft and 
the Department of Justice.
    I feel that this agreement, as is, will leave Microsoft to 
continue in its anticompetitive ways. It will not prevent the 
monopoly from using strong-arm tactics in licensing deals with 
computer makers, nor will it stop Microsoft from keeping competitive 
products from coming to market. As a result, consumers like myself 
will be forced to continue to pay for Microsoft's expensive 
operating systems and software suite and the upgrades required to 
keep them functional. In addition, our choice of software products 
will continue to be limited and for those of us who do use non-
Microsoft operating systems or Internet browsers, compatibility with 
other Microsoft products will continue to suffer.
    The additional proposal put forth by Massachusetts Attorney 
General Tom Reilly along with eight other states and the District of 
Columbia is a far better remedy than one proposed by the Department 
of Justice. This proposal includes key provisions that will put an 
end to Microsoft's illegal business dealings, help ensure 
compatibility of software products and bring consumers like myself 
the benefits of greater choice and lower prices. Moreover, unlike 
the Department of Justice's settlement, this proposal will provide 
an enforceable solution with real penalties to guarantee compliance.
    Therefore, it is my hope that the Court will find the Department 
of Justice's settlement with Microsoft not to be in the public 
interest and rather adopt the proposal of Tom Reilly and the other 
State Attorney Generals.
    Sincerely,
    Kiyoshi Yu
    388 Ocean Ave.
    Revere Beach, MA 02151



MTC-00029333

From: Robert Boyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attorney General John Ashcroft
Us Dept of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I have been following the Microsoft antitrust case in the papers 
and media and I think it is time to come to a settlement. Microsoft 
has met all , and more, of the competitors demands. We should meet 
the simple request of Microsoft to have the settlement approved, so 
Microsoft can go back to the business of innovating.
    I appreciate your efforts to have the Microsoft approved by the 
Court as in the best interest of the American public.
    Thank you for your attention to this matter.
    Billie Jo and Robert Boyer
    2126 New Bedford Dr.
    Sun City Center, Fl 33573
    Phone- 813-;634-;1181



MTC-00029334

From: Kedar Soman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Madam / Sir,
    This is in regard to Microsoft antitrust settlement case. I 
sincerely feel if Microsoft continues to follow the current 
practices, it will pose a grave challenge to the principle on which 
the capitalism is based, free and healthy competition.
    Simply put, if not curbed right now, following thing will 
happen. Your children will wake up listening microsoft radio station 
on microsoft radio. They will wear clothes made by microsoft, travel 
in microsoft made car to office, where they work on windows and MS 
OFfice. Later in evening, they will come back and watch Microsoft 
televison. Before sleeping, they will read microsoft printed Bible. 
And when they will open microsoft printed dictionery to read the 
meanings of words freedom and customer choice, they will hate you 
with their whole heart.
    Thanking you,
    Kedar Soman



MTC-00029335

From: linda rasband
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 10:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
linda rasband
670 west 91st ave.
anchorage, AK 99515
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 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,
    linda rasband



MTC-00029336

From: Gretchen Huizinga
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:57pm
    Please see attached letter regarding the Microsoft Settlement.
Gretchen Huizinga
Millennium Arts Inc.
18404 148th Avenue NE
Woodinville, WA 98072
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I would like to take this time to voice my opinion on the 
Microsoft case. The government had no right to intervene with 
private business, but now that the case has been allowed to drag on 
for three years, the American public needs to see that the case is 
finally ended. Microsoft is a good company; they've provided 
consumers with superior products and have changed our lives, 
contributing so much to our nation's economy. I run a production 
company and use Microsoft's products in my office. I am not forced 
to do so; I use their products because I prefer to.
    The proposed settlement will be more than favorable to 
Microsoft's competitors and will consequently foster competition. 
Microsoft has agreed to tone down its supposedly aggressive 
marketing techniques and will allow their competitors to create and 
promote non-Microsoft software in Windows. They are also going to 
give away a lot of their technical secrets to their competitors.
    This settlement is more than reasonable and is the right thing 
to do. Our economy is struggling and our technology industry needs 
to be restored. Ending this case is a perfect way to do that. Thank 
you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Gretchen Huizinga



MTC-00029337

From: Johannes Garcia

[[Page 28571]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Ladies & Gentlemen:
    We must continue to promote the best technology and give the 
opportunity to those who wants the freedom to innovate in all area 
of business and industries. Lets keep the courts and the politicians 
out of technology especially in this critical time ``The New 
World Economic''. If AOL wants to continue to played this role 
in promoting policy (and politics) over technology especially as 
they have done in the last three years and contributing in the 
impeding of new technology. Let us remember man is the maker of his 
destiny and we are all guilty if allowed it to happen. Why should 
the American people be punished to pay for the legal cost of this 
platform?
    As we all know AOL has promised to open up their instant 
messenger as Microsoft has done, so that we all can have a platform 
to build services for it, but has AOL complied? NO. They say one 
thing and do another.
    Microsoft has done bad things in the past but is not the evil 
some people make it out to be. If you had studied them in some 
depth, you'd understand that.
    Microsoft has done great things for the United States Economic 
and World Economic and their contribution to ordinary people is the 
real story. Let's keep our head over water and we should continue to 
review all the facts and put every things on the balanced (World 
Economic) before we make the biggest mistake in this new World 
Economic.
    Johannes Garcia



MTC-00029338

From: Bertram Rogers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:56pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Renata Hesse,
    I would like to see the Microsoft litigation settled amicably 
ASAP. Microsoft is one of only a few US companies that can compete 
in the world market. I would not like to see it so cripple that it 
can no longer compete.
    Best wishes,
    B. H. G. Rogers



MTC-00029340

From: jack eich
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 10:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
jack eich
18763 felton
morrison, IL 61270
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 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,
    jack l. eich



MTC-00029341

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is a common misperception that Microsoft built it's monopoly 
upon the proprietary nature of its Windows operating system. In 
truth, Microsoft built its monopoly upon the proprietary and secret 
nature of its communication protocols. One historically important 
example of a proprietary communication protocol is the secret file 
format utilized by Microsoft application programs such as Microsoft 
Word and Microsoft Excel.
    Because Microsoft wholly controls its secret communication 
protocols it has the ability to modify a specific protocol with each 
upgrade to an application program that uses said protocol. For 
example, when Microsoft issues an update for an application program 
such as Microsoft Word it has the ability to modify the file format 
used to encode Microsoft Word documents. Because Microsoft holds a 
monopoly within the application space that Microsoft Word competes 
the change in file format triggers a chain reaction of events. Once 
a critical mass of users adopts the new application program using 
the modified communication protocol (in this case the Microsoft word 
file format) other users are compelled to purchase the new version 
of the application program because the older version cannot 
understand and use the new protocol. People who wish to communicate 
within this particular space but who do not own Microsoft Word are 
compelled to purchase it, not because because the program offers 
innovative new features, but simply because the application program 
uses a proprietary protocol. Microsoft possesses both a monopoly and 
a secret proprietary protocol in many application spaces. This fact 
compels users to purchase Microsoft products instead of potentially 
superior competing products, and it allows Microsoft to set the 
price for these products at artificially high levels.
    This situation amounts to a de facto arbitrary tax on 
communication imposed by a private entity.
    The simplest and fairest solution with the best opportunity for 
success is to compel Microsoft to publicly document all of its 
communication protocols, including, but not limited to, all of its 
file formats. This solution is the fairest because it allows all 
competitors, including Microsoft, to innovate with respect to 
application features and performance, letting the market determine 
the price. It also frees users who wish to communicate within a 
particular space from the compulsion of purchasing Microsoft 
products.
    The simplest and best method for enforcing this behavior is to 
require the government to confiscate any and all revenue derived 
from each and every Microsoft product that directly utilizes, or 
contains any sub component which utilizes, any communication 
protocol that is not completely documented, including, but not 
limited to, file formats.



MTC-00029342

From: James W Duffett
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 11:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
James W Duffett
11690 County Farm Road
Lexington, Mo 64067-;7101
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 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,
    Wayne Duffett



MTC-00029343

From: Janice Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wrote to Attorney General Ashcroft about my feelings about the 
settlement. Now, I would like to tell you how I feel.
    I hope so much that there will soon be a settlement to this long 
drawn out affair. The

[[Page 28572]]

settlement that was outlined in the newspaper a few weeks ago seems 
fair and just to me. As a retired educator, I was particularly 
pleased to see that it involved gifts of materials and software to 
schools. It seems like a wonderful way to help children who are the 
consumers of the future. As an ``older'' consumer, I have 
grave doubts about the fact that this continued bickering has 
anything to do with the consumer at all. It appears to me to be an 
unjust form of competition by some rival companies i.e. Sun 
Microsystems, AOL, Oracle etc. and they are using to court system 
which I fund as a taxpayer to further their own ends.
    Please, make a fair and equitable end to the squabble. Microsoft 
is a good company who really has done a wonderful job of focusing on 
the consumer.
    Sincerely,
    Janice Johnson
    9308 190th ST SW
    Edmonds, WA 98020



MTC-00029344

From: Scott Dallmeyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement should not be approved as is. I do not 
believe that the proposed settlement does anything to rectify the 
situation created by the found criminal antitrust activities of 
Microsoft Corporation. The reason for antitrust laws is to maintain 
healthy competition and markets to promote more and better products. 
The settlement as proposed only legitimizes the anticompetitive 
behavior that has killed off so many potential innovators in the 
software industry.
    The proposed settlement is not in the best interests of the 
consumers of software, in spite of the posturing of Microsoft. 
Nothing they do or propose can be taken as being in the interests of 
the consumers. They make so-called ``standards'' and 
patent them (their message block structure for Windows XP to kill 
off Samba) and poison emerging standards such as Java all in the 
interest of Microsoft, not the consumer.
    I am totally opposed to this settlement as now structured.
    Thank you for the opportunity to comment,
    Scott Dallmeyer
    Winnetka, IL



MTC-00029345

From: Bob Bezona
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:10pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
2219 Lummi Shore Road
Bellingham, WA 98226
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I encourage you to accept the recent anti-trust settlement 
between Microsoft and the United States Justice Department because 
it's good for Microsoft's competitors and good for those who 
purchase software.
    Microsoft has agreed to make the software market more 
competitive by providing the necessary information for computer 
makers to remove Microsoft products from Windows and to install 
competing products in their places. Further, Microsoft has agreed to 
not take actions against computer makers who decide to take this 
route, nor will Microsoft prevent computer makers or software 
developers from shipping or promoting competing operating systems or 
software that runs on competing operating systems.
    For these reasons, I encourage you to support the recent 
settlement as good for Microsoft, good for its competitors, and good 
for the consumers.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Bezona



MTC-00029346

From: Mike Mammarella
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the terms of the revised proposed final judgement 
are too ambiguous; there is ample room for loopholes depending on 
the way Microsoft chooses to define, for instance, ``digital 
rights management.'' Microsoft has recently received a patent 
for digital rights management operating systems, which means that it 
would be not unreasonable to claim that the entire operating system 
(of some future version of Windows) is a digital rights management 
system and therefore exempt from API disclosure.
    The terms must be more well-defined, but also not so narrowly as 
to be specific to the technology of today. Microsoft will soon be 
boasting a new platform called ``.NET'', which could 
escape the terms of a too-narrowly defined ``operating 
system'' and therefore also be exempt from many of the terms of 
the judgement. Furthermore, I believe that simply limiting 
Microsoft's illegal monopoly abuse is insufficient. Microsoft has 
been accused of the same practices before, and reprimanded as a 
result. However, this does not seem to have stopped Microsoft from 
continuing the abuse of its operating system monopoly. A more 
drastic measure could be in order; however this measure must be 
carefully considered. I'd personally love to see Microsoft dissolved 
entirely for its support of proprietary PC hardware interfaces (see 
P.S.), but I realize that this is both unrealistic and uncalled for. 
However, a split between the operating system division and the 
software (and middleware) divisions would help to prevent future 
monopoly abuse; both companies would also be well placed in their 
respective markets from the beginning. There would need to be 
restrictions on their interaction, in order to prevent what happened 
to the AT&T fragments (they eventually joined together again) 
after that famous split.
    This is not the only possible solution. Others include requiring 
the disclosure of some or all of Windows'' source code, or that 
of Internet Explorer. These solutions could even be combined in full 
or partial strength.
    I am certainly no legal expert, however as a software engineer 
and system administrator I feel I am qualified to make the 
statements I have put forth here. I hope that they will be of use 
and that the eventual decision will be beneficial to all involved, 
with the possible exception of Microsoft which can only stand to be 
in some way restrained from previous illegal activity.
    Sincerely,
    Mike Mammarella
    P.S. A note about proprietary hardware interfaces--;in the 
days of DOS, when a hardware manufacturer made a perhipheral device, 
whether an adaptor card or a printer, they disclosed information 
needed in order for the operating system or individual programs to 
communicate and use that device. With the advent of Windows and its 
driver interfaces, hardware manufacturers stopped releasing this 
information, claiming its proprietary nature. Technically, this was 
the decision of hardware vendors, but Microsoft was in the position 
to encourage them to continue to disclose their protocols and it 
instead encouraged the opposite. The effect of all this is that 
other operating systems cannot support these devices unless the 
manufacturer writes a driver for that operating system as well, 
which due to Microsoft's monopoly is much less likely. This further 
increases the barriers for entry into the operating system market.



MTC-00029347

From: Missy Nielsen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I support the Microsoft/DOJ settlement.
    I do not agree with the nine holdout states. I believe their 
uncompetitive constituents are manipulating their AG... I remember 
how difficult it was to access the internet. I remember how 
difficult it was to use multiple software applications because none 
would work with the others.
    Microsoft has made my life as a consumer much, much easier and 
productive. Yes, Microsoft is a monopoly, but they are a monopoly 
that uses their position to benefit consumers.
    Please tell Sun, AOL, Oracle, etc. to spend their money on 
becoming competitive instead of fighting Microsoft.
    Melissa Nielsen



MTC-00029348

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:10pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    ATTORNEY GENERAL , SIR
    Please be advised as a Microsoft share holder and also user of 
the products, I am urging the settlement of the law suit. I vote to 
settle this suit knowing the provisions are tough, reasonable, fair 
to all parties involved and goes beyond the findings of the Court of 
Appeals ruling. It is prudent in my opinion to settle this suit now.
    Sincerely a shareholder.
    Mary Ann Myers
    4310 N. Camino de Carrillo
    Tucson, Arizona 85750--;6305



MTC-00029350

From: Barbara Sanders
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 11:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Barbara Sanders

[[Page 28573]]

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 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,
    Barbara A. Sanders



MTC-00029351

From: Johannes Garcia
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Ladies & Gentlemen:
    We must continue to promote the best technology and give the 
opportunity to those who wants the freedom to innovate in all area 
of business and industries. Lets keep the courts and the politicians 
out of technology especially in this critical time ``The New 
World Economic''. If AOL wants to continue to played this role 
in promoting policy (and politics) over technology especially as 
they have done in the last three years and contributing in the 
impeding of new technology. Let us remember man is the maker of his 
destiny and we are all guilty if allowed it to happen. Why should 
the American people be punished to pay for the legal cost of this 
platform?
    As we all know AOL has promised to open up their instant 
messenger as Microsoft has done, so that we all can have a platform 
to build services for it, but has AOL complied? NO. They say one 
thing and do another.
    Microsoft has done bad things in the past but is not the evil 
some people make it out to be. If you had studied them in some 
depth, you'd understand that.
    Microsoft has done great things for the United States Economic 
and World Economic and their contribution to ordinary people is the 
real story. Let's keep our head over water and we should continue to 
review all the facts and put every things on the balanced (World 
Economic) before we make the biggest mistake in this new World 
Economic.
    Johannes Garcia



MTC-00029352

From: Carl C. Lochen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Carl Lochen
30010 Rancho California Road
Apartment 124
Temecula, CA 92591-;2952
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    As an independent developer and supporter of Microsoft, I write 
you in regard to the recent Microsoft Settlement. After three years 
of negotiations, it seems strange that there may even be more delays 
in the implementation of this plan. The process was extremely well 
thought out and well monitored throughout. Because of this, the 
terms that were reached benefit all involved.
    As we go through these economically stressful times, it is 
crucial that we support our technology at all levels. By holding up 
this settlement, we take a backseat in the global market. Our entire 
technology industry needs to get back to business, and because of 
the agreement, we are ready to do so. Let us support our IT sector 
and allow the terms to speak for themselves, including anti-
retribution and retaliation acts, and the sharing of selected 
intellectual property.
    Splitting up Microsoft
    Specifically the non-Windows platform community has attacked 
Microsoft for adding to much functionality to its OS, and therefore 
stifling competition. They argue splitting up Microsoft, would make 
it easier to compete with Microsoft. This ignores the large amount 
of developers and companies that have made available more than 100 
000 programs available on the Windows platform. Splitting up 
Microsoft, will for them mean disrupting the dynamics of developing 
cutting edge technology for Windows.
    Windows Building blocks
    Splitting up Microsoft into pieces, will create smaller 
companies developing solutions/libraries that will not be included 
in Windows and therefore be keeping secrets from other independent 
developers who will have to develop their own incompatible 
solutions. Splitting up Microsoft, destroys Windows's ability to 
offer solutions for connecting together building blocks with the 
latest technology. Solutions that are now incorporated in Windows 
and documented for everyone, will end up as proprietary solutions 
outside Windows. Making it less feasible for smaller developers to 
keep up with the latest in technology.
    Microsoft is giving us pre-tested building blocks guaranteed to 
be interchangeable and compatible with each other. Developers using 
these building blocks for their own designs, know that their 
programs will be compatible with combinations of future designs 
trying to link up with or work together with their designs. Think of 
the many millions of errors windows is getting rid of for current 
and future developers of software...
    Whenever building blocks are rewritten with new interfaces, 
previous interface(s) are still available to let older designs work 
as building blocks change. This is true of COM+ and any of the API's 
that come with Windows. It beats trying to design applications to 
hook up to zillions of applications not using support from the OS.
    The Internet building blocks Internet technology built into 
Windows, assists applications using various Windows technologies in 
communicating and sharing data with each other over the Internet. 
This degree of integration between applications/components is only 
possible by having these technologies built into the platform they 
are running on. Internet Explorer built into Windows facilitates in 
building web browsers. Any developer can build their own Web Browser 
with their own customized controls. In less than a day they can 
design their own Web Browser that is equal in power to Internet 
Explorer. Just download the MFCIE project from Microsoft Developer 
Network (has been available a couple of years). In less than a day 
you implement remaining Internet Explorer Functions through the OLE/
COM+ interface. In a matter of days any organization can design 
their own Internet portals that access primarily sites of their own 
choosing.
    Documentation for developing software Microsoft develops the 
functionality and the building blocks needed for applications and 
distributed components to interact with each other on the Windows 
platform. Microsoft also provides Documentation and Developer 
information for all developers to take advantage of these features. 
Preventing Microsoft from freely expanding these features to provide 
the latest technologies, will damage the industry's ability to 
develop comprehensive integrated software solutions for the Windows 
platform. Instead you will end up with incompatible proprietary 
solutions and a less versatile Windows platform.
    I urge you to support our economy at this time, and help this 
settlement go through as it stands. I thank you for your support.
    Sincerely,
    Carl Lochen
    cc: Representative Darrell Issa



MTC-00029353

From: John Cowhig
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:12pm
Subject: Please be fair and don't reward Microsoft for breaking the 
law.
    I believe the proposed settlement is not punitive enough for 
past behavior nor will it be very effective to deter future strong 
arm tactics by Microsoft. At this point, the company has assured 
itself a comfortable distance ahead of all major competitors. 
However, as the linux and Macintosh OS community continue to try to 
gain market share, Microsoft has moved onto conquer new frontiers.
    It is important for the DOJ to focus on the future. The past 
damage is done, but Microsoft continues to use tactics which act

[[Page 28574]]

against the spirit of the law. The masses will continue to take the 
route Microsoft and AOL plan for them. However, there are many 
innovative small companies and grass roots type programmers who 
would like to continue to innovate. Please don't allow Microsoft to 
continue to place barriers in their way.
    Thank you,
    John Cowhig



MTC-00029354

From: Mayer Etkin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:14pm
Subject: RE: My comments on the settlement. Please see attached 
01-;02-;062 SEA
Clear Day
Capital Solutions, Inc.
Offices & Affiliates Worldwide
Email [email protected]
Seattle Office:
6719 Seward Park Avenue South
Seattle, WA. 98118
Tel 206-;723-;9353
Fax 206-;723-;9354
January 28th 2002
WPI # CSI APT 001
01-;02-;062 SEA
Confidential email of 2 pages to 
[email protected]
Ms. Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
US Department of Justice
RE: Comments on the Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    I am writing this email to you in my support of brining an end 
to this travesty of justice. The United States Department of Justice 
was suckered into persecuting Microsoft under the guise of an 
antitrust action.
    If I were the Judge and it were up to me, I would make the 
following ruling.
    * The court fines Microsoft the sum of $1.00
    * The court specifically precludes any plaintiff from using the 
case record in support of their civil motions or claims against 
Microsoft if any.
    The purpose of antitrust jurisprudence is not to enable a 
competitor to gain what they what they otherwise fait to gain in an 
open and competitive marketplace nor is the purpose to enable the 
plaintiffs bar to file a bogus class action law suit and legally 
extort $100 million dollars from a defendant because it's cheaper to 
settle then to litigate.
    * If it were up to me to rescind the conclusions of law and 
findings of fact in this case, I would do so and dismiss the case.
    Finally, I accept and approve of the settlement that the Federal 
Government and Microsoft have agreed to and I order the states that 
have not joined in it to accept it and to drop all further 
litigation against Microsoft.
    My reasons for making the above rulings are simple, go into any 
computer store and there are choices to be made. A consumer has the 
opportunity to decided for themselves exactly what their choice 
should be. If Microsoft had not taken the actions that they had, 
they would have run the risk of becoming an also ran in the software 
business and their operating system would have become obsolete. What 
one perceives as product improvement and natural migration in an 
evolving market may be perceived by a competitor in a different 
manner. It is up to the consumer to decide which is which and not 
for the government to interfere and make that determination for 
them. We are advocates of the law, not software engineers, designers 
nor marketers. In a dynamic and fluid market as this case has shown, 
what is being argued about is history not current events nor the 
current state of the software business.
    Let's hope the Judge has the courage to rule as suggested and 
let companies do their battle with each other in the marketplace 
free of government and judicial impediments.
    Have a great day.
    Sincerely yours,
    Capital Solutions,Inc.
    Mayer Etkin, President



MTC-00029355

From: Dearallie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
PHYLLIS CONANT
65 Kirkland Avenue Apt. 202
Kirkland, WA 98033-;6442 USA
Ph/FAX 425 828-;9474
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Now that the Department of Justice and Microsoft have reached an 
agreement, why can't we just move on? It doesn't make sense that all 
of these states and companies are jumping on the bandwagon. I think 
that they are all liberal opportunists that are looking for a quick 
buck. What benefit does all of this have on the economy? Zero.
    Microsoft has gone out of its way to settle this case, beyond 
what was required in the suit. They agreed to make available to the 
competition, protocols implemented from parts of its operating 
system that are used to operate with their server. Microsoft also 
agreed to the creation of a technical committee that will monitor 
Microsoft's compliance with the settlement and assist with any 
disputes.
    Now that Microsoft has agreed to such generous terms, shouldn't 
we agree to let the settlement stand. Our Government has more 
pressing issues that they need to focus their attention on. I trust 
that you will do the right thing.
    Thanks for your support in these efforts.
    Sincerely,
    Phyllis Conant



MTC-00029356

From: Rosemary Brubaker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    As a concerned citizen, I urge you to reject the proposed final 
judgment in the U.S. vs. Microsoft antitrust case. Microsoft is 
getting off easy, with most of its many billions in illegal profits 
going untouched. I'm also worried that Microsoft will continue to 
harm the high tech industry and the American consumer by using anti-
competitive bullying tactics. This convicted monopolist must be 
dealt stronger punishment for the good of the public.
    Sincerely,
    Rosemary Brubaker
    1502 Esbenshade Road
    Lancaster, PA 17601
    (408) 295-;7374



MTC-00029357

From: 
[email protected]@in
etgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:15pm
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,
    Bruce Davis
    R. R. 2, Box 769-;2
    Locust Grove, OK 74352-;9626



MTC-00029358

From: Robert L. Jenkel
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 11:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert L. Jenkel
587 E. Conestoga Circle
Grand Junction, CO 81504-;7004
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 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

[[Page 28575]]

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 L. and Joyce Jenkel



MTC-00029359

From: Chetan Prabhudesai
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    As a user of both Microsoft and Apple computer products, I have 
to say that I feel Apple Computer has the edge in technology. The 
fact that Microsoft has a commanding lead over Apple can be 
attributed to Microsoft's superior marketing. Promoting one's 
product has never been illegal before, and definitely should not be 
now.
    However, as I write this, I sit surrounded by Microsoft 
products: Windows, Internet Explorer, MSN Messenger, etc. I am 
typing this message on MSN Hotmail. Microsoft does have competitors 
in all of its business segments, but by packaging its inferior 
products together, it can make its software bundles seem superior to 
these competitors.
    My father owns stock in Microsoft, yet I still do not fully 
support the company. It may not have committed a physical crime like 
murder, but it has damaged America's economy by not allowing free 
trade.
    But perhaps economic crimes are not as bad as we think. Most 
companies recover from recessions, wars, etc.
    In my opinion, the only solution to the Microsoft case is to 
stop it from bundling software. We cannot let Microsoft off too 
easily, but we should not punish it too hard. Terrorism is a far 
more important topic for the Supreme Court right now than a company 
that supposedly stifled innovation.
    Sincerely,
    Chetan Prabhudesai, 15



MTC-00029360

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I think the settlement with Microsoft is full and fair. At no 
time in history have consumers had access to such full-featured 
software at such low cost. I have reviewed the settlement and it 
seems to protect the public interest, while limiting Microsoft's 
actions in the future. It also seems to go beyond the original case, 
evidencing Microsoft's good faith in the matter.
    Rebecca Ward



MTC-00029361

From: Sharon Rutland
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 11:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sharon Rutland
1068 Badger Road
North Pole, AK 99705
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 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,
    Sharon I. Rutland



MTC-00029362

From: Norman Lasko
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 11:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Norman Lasko
13400 Lakeview Dr. N
Omaha, AR 72662
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 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,
    Norman E. Lasko



MTC-00029363

From: Leland Younkin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has developed their products for several years. It has 
produced programs and systems that has greatly benefited millions of 
consumers, businesses and governments.Without Microsoft's 
innovations and market savvy we would still be in the dark ages of 
the computer world Now comes a horde of lawyers (like vultures) 
seeking to gain large settlements for their benefit. I am convinced 
that they are not acting to benefit consumers. Just for their own 
greed Let us put this whole case to rest and let Microsoft continue 
to be innovative and produce their superior products for all 
consumers.
    Sincerely;
    Leland A. Younkin
    335 Glendora Circle
    Danville, CA 04526-;3912
    Email address [email protected]



MTC-00029364

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:23pm
Subject: MICROSOFT JUDGEMENT
SEE ATTACHED


MTC-00029364_0001
2010 Crestwood Drive
Richmond, Texas 77469
January 8, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am happy to hear that the Department of Justice is ending its 
three-year antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft with a strong and 
binding agreement. This costly affair should have been ended a long 
time before this.
    Microsoft did not get off easy. The settlement was arrived at 
after extensive negotiations with a court-appointed mediator. The 
company agreed to terms that extend well beyond the products and 
procedures that were actually at issue in the suit- for the sake of 
wrapping up the suit.
    The agreement requires Microsoft to document and disclose, for 
use by its competitors, various interfaces that are internal to 
Windows'' operating system products that are used to 
communicate directly with the basic Windows system. Microsoft has 
also 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.
    Microsoft has been distracted for long enough. This agreement 
will very much

[[Page 28576]]

benefit its competitors. I do not believe any more litigation beyond 
this settlement is necessary.
    Sincerely,
    Janey Schumacher
    cc: Representative Tom DeLay



MTC-00029365

From: Douglas Schmutz
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 11:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Douglas Schmutz
9404 Oakland AVe NE
Albuquerque, NM 87122-;3806
January 28, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice
Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    This is just a note to say that I feel the currently 
contemplated settlement with Microsoft is a miscarriage of justice. 
The company has been and continues to be guilty of monopolistic 
business practices and is largely responsible for a great amount of 
the insecurity of the WEB. The only reason they have a fairly 
productive office suite is because they had to compete with 
WordPerfect. They did not innovate, it was WordPerfect that was the 
innovator, but because Microsoft controlled the operating system and 
could do it. they kept secrets that allowed them to make their 
product appear to perform better and made WordPerfect have 
incompatibility problems. They finally practically ruined 
WordPerfect by dropping prices and forcing computers to bundle their 
products instead of WordPerfect. The result is that now, they can 
(and do) raise the prices and of their products since the 
competition is almost nonexistent and they ship buggy software, full 
of security holes. I think it is in the interest of the consumer and 
the industry to place huge monetary penalties on the company and 
that money be distributed to software companies that used to compete 
so they can get back in business. Also they should be banned from 
producing software applications that run under Windows, so that they 
would have no interest in undermining the performance of thirdparty 
vendors.
    Sincerely,
    Doug Schmutz



MTC-00029366

From: robert shenk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Not only does the agreement lack effective enforcement, but it 
seriously fails to address past, present, and future anticompetetive 
practices. We should also not reward companies that embrace 
standards for the purpose of perverting them. The end result is that 
the settlement preserves Microsoft's status quo. As a Senior 
Software Engineer I find this rather frightening.
    Robert Shenk



MTC-00029367

From: Bill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It was unclear whether the deadline for submission was midnight 
on 27 January or midnight on January 28, so please accept this 
submission. The following is my opinion and understanding of 
Microsoft based upon over 20 years of experience with computers and 
electronics. I am not affiliated with any Microsoft competitor or 
free competition group. Microsoft has significantly impacted my 
choices and capabilities in a TREMENDOUSLY negative way. The impact 
includes monetary, quality of life, and purchasing freedom. Due to 
their anti-competitive practices, I have been forced into using an 
inferior, OVERLY EXPENSIVE, and VERY COMPLEX product in my workplace 
and where unavoidable, at home.
    Microsoft via either restrictive licensing and/or their 
initially ``free'' products coerces enough people using 
their product that they can later drive the market. People then must 
either use the Microsoft product or get left out of significant 
capabilities which Microsoft did not initially create, but which 
they have since taken over via either driving the real innovator out 
of business, purchasing the real innovator (or a competitor), or 
restrictive licensing. They have the money to do any of the three 
and have clearly done all of them more times than any other company 
in history. With only a few exceptions, MICROSOFT IS NOT AN 
INNOVATOR AND NEVER HAS BEEN. n
    Here are some (not exhaustive) examples of Microsoft's successes 
or at least attempts to own or control nearly all aspects of the 
computer/electronics industry (percentages or rankings are my guess 
and better numbers should be easily obtained and will likely be 
large or increasing):

Operating System (have nearly killed Apple) 60%
Word Processing (have nearly killed Wordperfect, killed Wordstar and 
others) 80%
Spreadsheets (killed Lotus, I7...) 80%
Presentation 80%
Project Management (hurt FastTrack) 80%
DB (measurable impact to Oracle, Sybase) 40%
Browser (have nearly killed Netscape, killed Mosaic) 79%
Audio Player (will hurt RealPlayer, Quicktime) ??%
Movie Editor (intent to hurt iMovie and Final Cut Pro) ??%
Network-MSN (hurt AOL, others) 30%
Information--;.NET, Passport ??%
Servers (significant impact to Solaris, IBM, and HP Unix Servers) 
??%
PDA Pocket PC OS (significant impact to PalmOS vendors) 45%
Gaming--;XBOX (targets are Playstation, Nintendo, others) ??%
Satellite TV--;Ultimate TV (target TiVo) ??%
SW Development.--;VisualBasic, C++, Classes (one area which they 
helped originate)??%
Web Development.--;Frontpage ??%
PIMs--;Entourage (target Now-Up-To-Date and others) ??%
Encyclopedia--;Expedia (target Groliers, others) ??%
E-Mail SW--;Outlook (killed Quickmail, hurt Lotus) ??%
Design--;bought Visio ??%
Java (attempted hijack of the Sun standard) ??%
News--;MSNBC (CNN, Fox, others) #3
eGreeting Cards MSN#4
Expedia Travel #2
Webmail Hotmail Tied #1
Finance MSMoney#5
Housing MSN Home Advisor #4
PC Games AgeOfEmpires #2

    As one can see, Microsoft has way too much control of too much 
of our computing/electronics-related way of life. There are also 
numerous other areas in which Microsoft has a least some interest 
and which we are not yet even aware of. EVERYONE knows that once 
Microsoft decides they want to dominate an area, there are few 
companies IN THE WORLD which will be able to compete with them. This 
is due to NOT JUST THEIR PRACTICES, but is also due to their ABILITY 
and willingness to unethically (and illegally) leverage areas which 
they already have control.
    Please break Microsoft's applications development from their 
operating system development. I believe this is the ONLY thing that 
can prevent Microsoft from continued restriction of competition. I 
strongly look forward to purchasing freedom and use of alternate 
operating systems and applications, both at home and at work.
    Thanks,
    Bill Eller
    Greenville, TX



MTC-00029368

From: 
[email protected]@inetg
w
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
My comments are attached.
Deborah Gouge


MTC-00029368--;0001
522 Woodland Road
Sewickley, Pennsylvania 15143
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    This is in regard to the settlement that has been reached in the 
government's three- year antitrust case against Microsoft. I want to 
let you know that I support the settlement that has been reached by 
the parties involved. The continued pursuit of this case would be a 
waste of time, money, and human resources. Microsoft will be making 
a number of specific changes due to the settlement. For instance, 
Microsoft has agreed to allow computer makers to remove the means by 
which consumers access various features of Windows, Windows 
Messenger, Microsoft's Internet Explorer, and Windows Media Player.
    Also, the company has agreed to document and disclose various 
interfaces that are internal to Windows'' operating system 
products for use by its competitors. I ask that the government 
accept the settlement, and stop continued litigation against 
Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Deborah Gouge
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum

[[Page 28577]]



MTC-00029369

From: Hamachek,Don
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 11:20pm
Subject: MicroSoft Settlement
12360 Edenwilde Drive
Roswell, GA 30075
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I would like to see the Microsoft settlement agreement 
finalized. The litigation has dragged on for long enough, to the 
detriment of the entire technology industry.
    I work in the tech industry as a consultant for Cerner Company. 
I have witnessed firsthand how this case has negatively affected the 
technology world. Settling the case is in the best interest of 
everyone.
    The terms of the settlement agreement are reasonable. Microsoft 
has agreed to license Windows to the 20 largest computer companies 
at the same price. They have also agreed not to retaliate against 
those who promote or develop software that competes with Windows. 
These types of concessions will help allay fears of anticompetitive 
business practices.
    I appreciate your efforts at concluding this litigation. Thank 
you for your consideration of my comments regarding this issue.
    Sincerely,
    Electronically signed
    Donald Hamachek



MTC-00029370

From: Kattner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please accept settlement upon which you have requested public 
input.



MTC-00029371

From: Abe Lum
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I was pleased to hear that the Department of Justice and a 
number of states have made efforts at settlingthe Microsoft 
antitrust case. I am writing today to urge the court to approve the 
settlement agreement. Nothing can be gained by continuing litigation 
in this case. Microsoft has been more than fair in agreeing with 
changing some of their practices. I hope to see the agreements 
finalzed in the near future. I thank you for your time and 
attention.
    Abe Lum
    5004-;29th So.
    Seattle Wash 98108



MTC-00029372

From: Thomas Keplar
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 11:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Thomas Keplar
2710 Emmet Dr.
Logansport, IN 46947
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 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,
    Thomas Keplar



MTC-00029373

From: Karen Martin
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 11:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Karen Martin
897 S. Washington PMB 227
Holland, MI 49423
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 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,
    Karen E. Martin



MTC-00029374

From: Joseph Wojtowicz
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 11:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joseph Wojtowicz
1390 Northfield Drive
Mineral Ridge, OH 44440-;9420
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 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,
    Joseph T. Wojtowicz



MTC-00029375

From: Harry Chandler
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 11:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Harry Chandler
1109 Dixon Dr.
Chula Vista, CA 91911-;3304
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

[[Page 28578]]

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,
    Harry C. Chandler Jr.



MTC-00029376

From: Albert Bryson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 11:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Albert Bryson
P.O. Box 365
Cochranville, PA 19330-;0365
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 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,
    AlbertvBryson



MTC-00029377

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:27pm
Subject: Fwd: Attorney General John Ashcroft Letter
349 Gardiners Avenue
Levittown, NY 11756-;3701
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As a retired accountant who has been following the Microsoft 
antitrust case, I'm still trying to come to terms with the fact that 
it was determined that Microsoft was acting as a monopoly. How has 
the public been hurt by the practices of Microsoft? I remember when 
the price of computers and software was prohibitive for the 
consumer. Because of Bill Gates'' technical and business 
acumen, DOS standardized and unified computer systems, and Windows 
popularized the graphical user interface, dramatically increasing 
user-friendliness and computer literacy. Thanks in large part to 
these developments; computers are now commonplace and cheap, 
reliable and easy to use, and versatile and useful in all kinds of 
ways.
    Now that a settlement has been reached, there is now the threat 
of more litigation? It's a desperation move on the part of 
Microsoft's competition. Since they lack the knowledge and the 
fortitude to compete in the market, they're suing instead. And the 
attorney generals of the nine states that want increased litigation 
are only trying to further their careers by getting more money for 
their respective states. This is grossly unfair.
    Microsoft has gone out of its way to cooperate even beyond what 
was expected. What other company has agreed to license its operating 
system to the 20 largest computer companies on identical terms, 
conditions and price?
    Microsoft did. How many companies have agreed to disclose 
various internal interfaces of their operating system to the 
competition? Microsoft did. I guess that's not enough?! This lawsuit 
has got to stop. It has dragged on for over three years and may take 
another three years to resolve. I'm afraid for what this could do to 
the economy if it is allowed to continue. More poor people have 
moved up the ranks toward middle and upper middle class because of 
Bill Gates. have full faith in Microsoft's ability to come back on 
top if this litigation ends quickly. Otherwise, if the company is 
allowed to be destroyed, it will have devastating effects on this 
already fragile economy.
    Sincerely,
    Andrew Calapai



MTC-00029378

From: Walt Birdsall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    From 1979 to 1982, the Federal government squandered millions of 
taxpayer money trying to destroy one of the finest companies the 
American industrial genius has ever produced: International Business 
Machines, commonly known as IBM. With its reputation for boat-anchor 
reliable hardware and its legendary and meticulous obsession with 
customer service, IBM was the standard by which all other computer 
companies were measured.
    At the last minute, the Feds broke up the phone company. Today, 
our computers are world-class and our patchwork quilt phone system 
is on par with Afghanistan.
    The Federal government is now trying to destroy Microsoft, 
probably using the same legal blunderbusses, the same hapless but 
deep-pocketed taxpayers, and for the same misguided reasons: it's 
too big, it's a monopoly, they make too much money, stifle 
competition... et cetera, et cetera.
    Do you folks not learn from past screw-ups?
    As a professional software engineer, let me explain Windows to 
you. Windows is typing. Nothing else is involved. No natural 
resources were consumed, no wildlife was endangered, no wetlands 
were compromised, and no child labor laws were violated (although 
I've known some pretty immature teckkies in my day!) A bunch of ill 
clad, anti-social, frequently unwashed engineers of dubious morals 
and execrable personal habits, gather in consort... and they type.
    And the public buys it. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Are 
you with me?
    A few years ago, some twit at the Department of Justice crowed 
about having created a ``level playing field'' with 
respect to Microsoft. (Sports metaphors are very much in vogue at 
the DOJ.)
    The next day there was great rejoicing in the streets of Bonn, 
New Delhi, Tokyo, Taipei, and London. They just *love* level playing 
fields!
    It is the nature of the computer business that one company must 
dominate and set the standards that define the industry. Previously, 
that company was IBM; today, it is Microsoft. If you damage 
Microsoft, you will foment an unimaginable Tower of Babel chaos. Do 
you have any idea of the trillions of dollars of American wealth 
that have been created and leveraged by Microsoft's craftsmanship? 
Where would Mike Dell be? Intel? Seagate, Maxtor, and Western 
Digital, if there were no Windows? How many printers do you think HP 
would sell if there were no PCs to plug into? The Internet would 
revert to what it once was: an academic play-toy.
    Someday, the natural evolutionary forces of technology will 
cause Microsoft to be set aside into an honored, hallowed place in 
industrial fossil history, and to a well-deserved rest. My teckkie 
brethren and I will then create a new enterprise.
    Sadly, no one in government has any understanding in this arena 
except to meddle and create unimaginable mischief.
    Please do us all a favor and just go away.
    Walt Birdsall
    Retired software engineer



MTC-00029379

From: ALBERT M. JACHENS
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 11:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
ALBERT M. JACHENS
4492 W. SIERRA
FRRESNO, CA 93722-;2916
January 28, 2002
Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 28579]]

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,
    ALBERT M. JACHENS



MTC-00029380

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:29pm
Subject: Microsoft DOJ Settlement
8426 Academy Street
Houston, Texas 77025
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to say that I am pleased that the Justice 
Department and Microsoft have finally agreed upon a settlement.
    Microsoft's philosophy of a computer in every home with everyone 
having access to the Internet at a reasonable price has made this 
country the most computer literate in the world. I understand this 
settlement will force Microsoft to make a number of specific changes 
to its products and business practices.
    I only hope that this ``government'' control will not 
stifle Microsoft from continuing to develop new products at 
reasonable prices and advancing computer communication and usage.
    Sincerely,
    Rex Morris
    8426 Academy St.
    Houston, Tx 77025
    713-;592-;6549
    [email protected]



MTC-00029381

From: Gail Hemmerich
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 11:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gail Hemmerich
4464 Mosquito Lake Road
Deming, Wa 98244
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 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,
    Gail Hemmerich



MTC-00029382

From: Jeff Jarrard
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 11:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jeff Jarrard
601 S Washington St. Apt. 407
Seattle, WA 98104
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 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.
    It should also be noted that the explosive growth in the host 
count on the Internet, the boom in new technology and innovative new 
business models (such as the one from which I am sending this 
message) were made possible by Microsoft's Internet Explorer, not 
Netscape. The Internet was a fledgling, hard-to-use network closed 
to the ``average American'' before Microsoft included I.E. 
in Windows 95. It was nothing more than a hobbyists pastime until 
then.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Jeff Jarrard



MTC-00029383

From: George Gribben
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 11:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
George Gribben
580 Highland Hills Dr.
Howard, OH 43028
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 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,
    George A. Gribben, Jr.

[[Page 28580]]



MTC-00029384

From: Gayle Drake
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 11:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gayle Drake
10211 Old Fort Rd.
Klamath Falls, OR 97601
January 28, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice
Antitrust Division
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,
    Gayle Drake



MTC-00029385

From: John Hughes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am against the current settlement between the justice 
department and the nine states with Microsoft. As a consumer of 
computer products I feel that Microsoft has abused it's monopoly 
power and will continue to do so. As a consumer I feel that I should 
be allowed choices of the features that my operating system on my 
computer should have.
    Sincerely,
    John Hughes
    [email protected]



MTC-00029387

From: Wayne Quinton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlment
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to tell you what I think of the Microsoft Case. 
This case is certainly not serving the public interest; it wasn't 
even brought on by the public. It was brought on because of their 
competitors'' influence and is now being paid for with tax 
money. This case is a ridiculous waste of tax money. People are 
suing Microsoft because they can't compete. I think there is 
something wrong when the law allows that.
    Microsoft is passing on their technology secrets to their 
competitors and has even promised not to retaliate when competitors 
create products from that technology that would compete with 
Microsoft. If that's not fair, then I don't see what would be. 
Breaking up the company would be disastrous to our country's 
economy.
    This settlement is long past due and needs to be accepted 
immediately.
    Accepting this settlement is the right way to end this mess.
    Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Wayne Quinton
    The Highlands
    Seattle, WA 98177



MTC-00029389

From: Karen Horovitz
To: Microsoft 
ATR,[email protected]@
inetgw,...
Date: 1/28/02 11:35pm
Karen Horovitz
Period 2
1/28/01
    To Whoever it may concern-
    I think that the government should accept the settlement from 
Microsoft. Although Microsoft is a monopoly, in our history there 
have been many other monopolies. One of them, Rockafeller's oil 
monopoly, had given him huge profits. Rockafeller had gotten rich on 
a trust fund. Now the new issue is Netscape vs Internet Explorer.
    AOL Time Warner is suing Microsoft because they claim that they 
have been bundling their software with Internet Explorer browser and 
that this has reduced the internet market share for Netscape.
    Well I don?t think Netscape should be blaming Microsoft when 
they are actually the ones who are bundling.
    They bundle their product with both the hardware and software, 
making the buyer actually get two things in one.
    Not only this, but AOL Time Warner is a huge company. They own 
many sub-companies. These companies include Warner Bros., AOL, and 
many other entertainment companies. Because of this, they probably 
are just suing Microsoft because they want to be the biggest 
company. Microsoft spokesperson Jim Desler says, ?AOL Time Warner 
has been using the political and legal systems to compete against 
Microsoft for years?? This just shows that they sued Microsoft to 
compete against Microsoft. Microsoft may not be the only ones 
violating the antitrust act.



MTC-00029390

From: Joseph Beyer
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 11:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joseph Beyer
1527 S.E. Schiller St.
Poreland, Or 97202
January 28, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice
Antitrust Division
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,
    Joe Beyer



MTC-00029391

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:34pm
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 intention of this letter is so that I may express my 
feelings about the antitrust suit against Microsoft, and the 
settlement that was reached last November that ended that suit. The 
Department of Justice and Microsoft agreed to terms on a proposed 
settlement, and I support that proposition.
    I do believe however, that Microsoft should have been left alone 
in the first place. There are many other corporations that should 
have received the attention from the government that Microsoft did. 
There are terms in the settlement that go a little far, especially 
the ones that force Microsoft to turn over their intellectual 
property to competitors. They will be documenting various interfaces 
and source code that is internal to the Windows'' operating 
system, and giving that to their competitors. This is a travesty of 
justice.
    The antitrust suit against Microsoft was uncalled for, but I 
guess that the settlement is the best thing that could have 
happened. It could have been much worse. I support the

[[Page 28581]]

settlement because I do not wish to see any further legal action 
taken against Microsoft.
    This entire law suit was brought about because of sour grapes on 
the part of a few people, namely Sunmicro system's CEO. With his 
connections with a few Senators, namely Warren Hatch from Utah. He 
was able to get a senate hearing, and the rest is history.
    Gosh darn it, the Federal Government can do us a great deal more 
good by going after such corporations as big oil. Look at what they 
are doing with the price of oil, at this very moment, with market 
control of prices almost varying by zip code. And they talk of Bill 
gouging the public for his Windows programs and getting by with it 
due to a lack of competition--; please, give me a break.
    Sincerely,
    Harry Riddle
    P.O. Box 88
    No. Lakewood, WA 98259
    CC:[email protected]@
inetgw



MTC-00029392

From: David Little
To: microsoft.atr
Date: 1/28/02 11:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Comment
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
28 January 2002
    Ms. Hesse,
    This letter presents my comments to the Proposed Final Judgment 
in the Microsoft Settlement. I object to the PFJ on the following 
grounds:
    -It fails to require the release of the Office file formats. As 
I IT professional I've seen the lack of alternative Offices packages 
as a key source of the Microsoft's hold on the desktop since the 
ability in exchange documents in binary form is a key to 
collaboration both inside and outside the organization.
    -It fails to address Enterprise License Agreements. Microsoft's 
licensing of both the OS's and Office require payment for all 
computers. As computers are scrapped due to age the licenses can't 
be moved the newer machines since OEM's require an OS to be 
installed.
    -It fails to provide an effective enforcement mechanism. 
Microsoft has shown its willingness to circumvent agreements in the 
past. Without a strong enforcement mechanism I believe they will do 
so again.
    There have been several lists of issues publish but these are 
the ones I consider the most important.
    Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
    David H. Little, Jr.
    PO Box 90111
    Raleigh, NC 27675
    [email protected]



MTC-00029393

From: 
[email protected]@ine
tgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:34pm
Subject: microsoft
Virginia Stone
215 Shope Creek Road
Asheville, NC 28805-;9796
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft: After three long years, the Department of 
Justice and Microsoft have reached an agreement ending the antitrust 
suit brought against Microsoft. I want to give my support to this 
settlement and ask that you do also.
    Microsoft has been more than fair in dealing with this issue. 
Microsoft has agreed to work with companies to achieve a greater 
degree of reliability with regard to their networking software; 
Microsoft has agreed to grant computer makers license to configure 
Windows so as to promote non-Microsoft software.
    The list goes on and on. Microsoft and the Department of Justice 
obviously want to put this case behind us. Further litigation will 
only be counterproductive.
    Give your support to this agreement. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Virginia Stone



MTC-00029394

From: Sandy Graham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 28, 2002
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my support in the recent settlement 
between Microsoft and the federal government. I sincerely hope that 
no further litigation is being pursued at the federal level.
    It is my opinion that any further action would be completely 
unnecessary. Saundra Graham [email protected]



MTC-00029395

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:34pm
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,
    Terese Marks
    3122 Heritage
    Troy, MI 48083-;5784



MTC-00029396

From: F. John Leonard
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 11:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
F. John Leonard
69 Farr Lane
Elmira,, NY 14903-;7907
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 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,
    Mr. F. John Leonard



MTC-00029397

From: John Moon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I recently learned the federal government and Microsoft settled 
their antitrust lawsuit. As the CTO of a custom software 
applications firm utilizing Microsoft technology, I would like to 
express my satisfaction with the settlement of this matter out of 
court.
    Continued litigation on this matter would not be productive and 
would only serve to make the lawyers rich at the expense of 
innovation, among other things. That is why Microsoft wants to 
settle--;not to mention it has been forced to spend untold 
millions on defending itself for the past three years.
    Settling this lawsuit will lift the cloud of apprehension and 
nervousness that has plagued many tech firms since its inception.

[[Page 28582]]

The positive affects of settling this matter are quite clear. It 
will enable my company to continue designing custom applications 
without the headache of triple-sourcing which is what a Microsoft 
breakup would have caused. This may sound like a minor thing, 
however, it is not. It would be an inefficient administrative 
nightmare that would affect the performance of the company.
    It is my hope that the settlement is finalized at the conclusion 
of the public comment period. It is in everyone's best interest.
    --;John Moon
    [email protected]
    310/300-;1701
    digital builders, inc.
    310/DIGITAL
    310/300-;1600 fax
    www.digitalbuilders.com



MTC-00029398

From: Rolland Brengle Jr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:38pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    I believe the settlement Microsoft offered should be accepted by 
the DOJ. Consumers are the ones that will benefit from using 
Microsoft products.
    R. M. Brengle, Jr.
    3325 Center
    Highland MI 48357



MTC-00029399

From: Leland Younkin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has developed their products for several years. It has 
produced programs and systems that has greatly benefited millions of 
consumers, businesses and governments.Without Microsoft's 
innovations and market savvy we would still be in the dark ages of 
the computer world
    Now comes a horde of lawyers (like vultures) seeking to gain 
large settlements for their benefit. I am convinced that they are 
not acting to benefit consumers. Just for their own greed Let us put 
this whole case to rest and let Microsoft continue to be innovative 
and produce their superior products for all consumers.
    Sincerely;
    Leland A. Younkin
    335 Glendora Circle
    Danville, CA 04526-;3912
    Email address [email protected]



MTC-00029400

From: RICHARD SMITH
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
11531 Reltas Ct.
Cincinnati, OH 45249-;1707
January 28,2002
The Hon. John Ashcroft;
Attorney General;
U.S. Department of Justice;
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW;
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Attorney General:
    The Department of Justice made a good pitch to Americans at the 
start of the ``U.S. vs. Microsoft'' lawsuit. We were told 
that the consumer needed government intervention to avoid being 
injured by Microsoft's unethical business practices. However, three 
years of litigation have proven enormously expensive for Microsoft 
and for the federal government. The inevitable result will be that 
any substantive benefit the settlement brings to the consumer will 
be balanced or outweighed by the great burden that the suit has been 
for the IT industry as a whole. Microsoft will have to reveal 
portions of Windows code to competitors and by being subject to the 
permanent scrutiny of a three person committee formed to review 
Microsoft's actions for years to come. This should be considered a 
fair resolution.
    PLEASE--;let's stick to the agreement!! Anymore time and 
resources spent in persuing Microsoft at the federal level can only 
serve to raise the price of the lawsuit to customers and taxpayers. 
It is high time to see this matter put behind us. The Department of 
Justice must end this lawsuit as soon as this period of public 
comment is concluded.
    Very sincerely,
    Richard Smith



MTC-00029401

From: James Brubaker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:41pm
Subject: Concern re the Microsoft Settlement
    Honorable Judge,
    I'm writing to ask you to reject the proposed final judgment in 
the U.S. vs. Microsoft case. Microsoft has been found to have 
violated our nation's antitrust laws, reaping many billions of 
dollars of profits in the process.
    This proposed settlement would allow the company to retain 
almost all of that. I am also concerned that there are no provisions 
to protect us from Microsoft's continuing anticompetitive behavior. 
There is no indication Microsoft will cease its antitrust 
violations, and the company is left to police itself!
    Actually, the proposed final settlement would amount to a 
government validation of the monopoly. I urge you to reject the 
proposed final judgment as it is not in the best interest of the 
public.
    Respectfully,
    James Brubaker
    1502 Esbenshade Rd.
    Lancaster, PA 17601-;4450
    717-;295-;7374



MTC-00029402

From: Pat Iler
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 11:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Pat Iler
3510 W. Shady Side Road
Angola, IN 46703
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 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,
    Pat Ier



MTC-00029403

From: James T Pulaski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:42pm
Subject: My comments on the MS antitrust settlement
    My view is that no one operating system should entirely dominate 
the market.
    Not Windows, Mac OS, OS 2 Warp, Linux, Unix, nor Be OS.
    So I think Windows needs to be around, but Microsoft has just 
gotten to big!
    I only want to make a few quick suggestions. These comments 
should be in addition to other remedies already decided.
    Microsoft (MS) should be forced to make a choice between the 
software business and the operating system (OS) business.
    If they want to be in the software business, Windows should be 
made open source. This would prevent MS from taking over the market 
by virtue of being first to the OS table. It would foster innovation 
by making the playing field even.
    If they want to be in the operating system business, then all 
other software divisions should be spun off into separate entities 
(or one big software entity). This again would take away the 
incentive for MS tying software inexorably to their operating 
system.
    In addition, I like the idea of giving something to education. I 
think they should donate $800 million cash to the nations schools to 
be used for computer training and equipment. The schools would be 
free to choose what-ever brand of computer and operating system they 
prefer.
    That is my two cents! Good luck!
    Jim Pulaski



MTC-00029404

From: Todd Buckley

[[Page 28583]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing this letter to voice my concern over the monopoly 
power that Microsoft Corporation has used in order to retard 
innovation in the computer industry. I have been a computer user for 
almost 20 years and I have seen many technologies come and go, but 
never have I witnessed a company with such zeal and destructive 
power. I am sure Microsoft truly believes that it is innovating and 
improving the quality of life for the general computer user, but I 
find it interesting that the patents held by Microsoft are 
significantly smaller than patents held by other companies, such as 
Apple Computers, Inc.
    Where has the innovation come from? Microsoft is excellent at 
copying and mass marketing technology, but they do not innovate for 
the good of humanity. Quotes like this sum it up, ``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,'' Jackson wrote in his findings of 
fact in November 1999.
    This is completely true. I have first-hand experience working 
with Microsoft and it isn1t pleasant. I have watched companies such 
as Apple Computer, Real Networks, and BE, Inc. create new, 
beneficial products for the market, but to only get strong armed by 
Microsoft. And another quote that demonstrates Microsoft1s behavior. 
``Many of the tactics Microsoft employed have also harmed 
consumers indirectly by unjustifiably distorting competition.''
    There are numerous things that Microsoft has introduced that 
have badly hurt the consumer such as Security. Look at how many 
viruses have been spread. This directly equates to reduced 
productivity. Where is the innovation? Think about Digital Video. 
Apple1s Quicktime was the first computer program to use moving 
images and sound on a broad level for computer users. That was 1990. 
This lead to Real Networks, or Progressive Networks at the time, 
which created the ``streaming'' audio and video market 
over the Internet. It wasn1t until much later that Microsoft finally 
realized this would be an important part of an end-users experience. 
Microsoft did not innovate. They used their desktop OS volume to 
force feed consumers with a second rate technology. After many, 
seven, development cycles Microsoft has managed to release a good 
product, but there were good products available before. This 
behavior does not benefit the end-user.
    Apple contracted with a 3rd party to help develop QuickTime for 
Windows. Unable to countenance Apple's success with a Windows add-on 
and incapable of developing an equivalent technology within, the 
Microsoft camp hired the same company to bail out Video for Windows. 
Lo and behold, Apple programmers discovered amazing similarities in 
Microsoft's code. Apple filed an injunction and forced Microsoft to 
rework their code. As part of the recent deal, Microsoft paid Apple 
100 million dollars and Apple has agreed to drop such contentious 
issues and cross license core technologies. Potentially, of course, 
the market for QuickTime or a Windows equivalent is enormous.
    Another example of Microsoft abuse is the user interface. Apple 
filed patent 5,959,624, in January 1997 which enabled many 
innovations in the user interface for the desktop computer. 
Microsoft copied many of these things. Microsoft did not innovate.
    There is no justification for Microsoft1s behavior. The massive 
power and influence of Microsoft has hurt the consumer by limiting 
innovation. There are numerous more examples I could site, but I 
want to keep this letter to the point. Microsoft is a monopoly. 
Microsoft has harmed the consumer directly through its actions. 
Microsoft has not innovated on the consumers1 behalf. As this 
settlement continues please, keep these things in mind. Microsoft 
should not be allowed to continue with ``business as 
usual'', but they should be punished accordingly. The 
punishment should not be a simple solution, but a complete solution 
that will enable an industry to grow and thrive like a balanced eco-
system.
    Thank you,
    Todd Buckley
    CC: 
[email protected]@inetgw,attorney.gener...



MTC-00029405

From: Philip Brazil
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 11:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Philip Brazil
5205 Sabin Ave
Fremont, CA 94536
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 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,
    Philip E Brazil



MTC-00029406

From: Kevin Schumacher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a private citizen, not employed by any computer-industry 
company, organization, or group, writing about my concern the 
effects of Microsoft's business practices have had on the 
``free market''. I have not been asked to write on behalf 
of anyone, or any company.
    Microsoft is a moving target, a company who the courts have 
recently agreed, has ``won'' by cheating, a company who 
has a history of using dirty tricks, intimidation, and taking 
advantage of every possible loophole. They also made a mockery of 
their last ``agreement'' with the DOJ by violating it at 
every opportunity, and what has the government learned from these 
experiences? --;Not enough, apparently.
    If you will indulge me for a moment, my ``prediction'' 
for the future is that Microsoft will be spending more & more of 
their time in courts all over the world, not just in the US. Have 
you seen Microsoft's FY2001 last quarter's charge of $600,000,000.00 
for ``legal expenses''? This trend will be growing 
--;exponentially, and ``rightly'' so. The Chinese, UK, 
and French governments have realized how firmly they are in 
Microsoft's grip, and how much of their national wealth is being 
paid to this (American) gorilla...so much so that the Chinese 
government's policy is to move to Linux. Others will follow.
    I'm quite sure that Sun will continue to develop Star Office. I 
also think that Apple's Mac OS X will be adopted in more business 
environments, but only because it does work well in a WinTel-
dominated networking world. Apple must improve OS X's 
interoperability with Windows networking environments to have any 
real hope of growing their market share. This assumes that 
Microsoft's moving target strategy, combined with their -embrace, -
extend, -extinguish, tactic (``because our customers demand 
it!''), or the ever-present FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) 
factor effect, or finally their last big gun, the 
$36,000,000,000,000 in their savings account, --;doesn't slow 
Apple down so much that it's impossible for them to succeed...a BIG 
assumption. In the end, even if a few other companies produce a 
great new product, Microsoft will simply BUY THEM, --;if the DOJ 
allows...just like they bought SGI's intellectual property, i.e. 
OpenGL...which, by the way, Apple's OS X uses (what a coincidence!), 
or simply develop a clone and then pollute the original. 
--;Java, anyone? Here's a quote from a very recent article 
published on the web:
    ``The second most common critique had to do with my 
comments about Apple being a niche player. Many readers brought up 
examples of strong companies that themselves enjoy no more--;and 
sometimes less--;than 4.5 percent overall market share. But that 
reaction is (pardon the expression)

[[Page 28584]]

like comparing Apples to oranges. BMW and Ben & Jerry's are 
viable companies with relatively small market share. But neither of 
them is competing in a market dominated by one proprietary 
technology platform. There is no 95 percent gorilla in the jungle of 
the automobile or ice cream market. But there is one in the personal 
computer world, and it's called Wintel.'' No, no, no! It's 
called ``Microsoft'', not ``WinTel''! AMD is a 
major alternative/competitor, to be fair, and there are several 
minor players as well, but, --;there's only ONE Microsoft. This 
point is critically important! Microsoft is the world-dominating, 
company-killing machine; it's Microsoft steering the boat...Intel is 
a very grateful passenger, trying very hard not to rock the boat 
(too much). Remember when Intel tried to ``do their own 
thing'' by developing their own multimedia software, and how 
Microsoft responded? Nothing happens without Bill's approval, 
combined with ``plausible deniability''. Sound familiar? 
Requisite knowledge for CEO's, these days.
    Apple has suffered through a decade of negative press, who 
constantly produce headlines asking the same question, ``Can 
Apple Survive Another Year? ...why not ask the other, more relevant 
question, --;''How Does Microsoft Constantly Defeat All 
Other Companies?''...and then ask why consumers, and the US 
Government, don't seem to care one iota until they find bloody 
corpses littering corporate America? Netscape, DR-DOS, VisiCalc, 
Apple (and the innovator, -QuickTime!). Microsoft copies everyone, 
adds it to their OS, which kills the innovators. ...RealNetworks, 
and Java, next?
    Or, Microsoft ``competes'' with Sony's Playstation by 
buying up the gaming developers to ensure Xbox-only titles. Sounds a 
lot like one of the tactics used to ensure the ``success'' 
of Windows. If Microsoft can't/isn't allowed (anti-trust issues) to 
buy them up, Intel steps in for the assist; look to the audio & 
video companies for some recent examples (Terran & Avid). Is 
this the way companies win? Is this ``competing'' in 
America?
    I have two questions, and I hope you will think about them 
before coming to a decision regarding an appropriate settlement with 
Microsoft:
    1. (If) I have a great new idea for a piece of software, an idea 
so good that it is certain to change the way computers are used by 
everyone...business, consumers, schools, etc... How Likely Is It, 
That I Could Ever Hope To Bring It To Market Where The 900 Pound 
Gorilla Rules?
    2. Why do the real innovators in today's computing world fare so 
poorly? How is it possible to have great ideas/products/management/
funding, etc...and still fail completely? So completely, that 
there's room enough only for Microsoft?
    Consider that Apple's very future relies on Microsoft continuing 
to publish MS Office Suite for Macintosh, and that, should Microsoft 
ever want to put Apple out of business overnight, they could by 
discontinuing this one product. Think I'm exaggerating?
    How is it possible to arrive at a just remedy, without first 
addressing these issues? As you search for a remedy, consider making 
--;file formats--; a ``government & ISO-mandated 
World Standard''...so that at the very least, Microsoft won't 
be able to constantly use their embrace/extend/extinguish tactics 
--;''because our customers demand it!''
    Consider splitting the company into an Applications Group, and 
an Operating Systems Group. This is NOT as radical a solution as 
some have made it out to be.
    Consider forcing Microsoft to make Apple (or some other third 
party company) a licensee of MS Office Suite for Macintosh, to 
remove the doubt & worry from the marketplace put there by 
Microsoft, that maybe, one day, we'll stop publishing it for the 
Mac...then where will all of you poor Mac-users be?
    Sincerely,
    Kevin Schumacher
    771 13 th St
    San Diego, CA 92101-;7303



MTC-00029407

From: John Thurlow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I truly hope this settlement will be accepted so that this whole 
matter can be put behind us and we can move on. As a consumer I have 
often felt that some of the more extreme remedies proposed by some 
of the Attorney's General and Microsoft's opponents amounted to 
something of a sword hanging over my head a punishment for all those 
years ago having abandoned the Apple II in favour of a Gateway PC 
because I could not afford to buy into Apple's Macintosh 
``monopoly''. I could see in Microsoft a company which had 
offered me a way forward when I was stuck on an aging architecture 
(the Apple II) being carved and quartered in a way that meant the 
products I currently use and depend on would be negatively impacted. 
Suffice to say that whilst I believe Microsoft is not totally 
blameless, I have never bought into the notion that they are a 
purely malevolent force and the scourge of the industry, the fact is 
that Microsoft was never handed a ``monopoly'' it had to 
earn that position of dominance from scratch and the sad truth is 
that attaining that position had as much to do with their 
competitors ineptitude and greed as it did with Microsoft's 
innovation and savvy. I will not dwell on my differences with the 
monopoly ruling and all that stemmed from that and some of the crass 
opportunism on the part of Microsoft competitors and lawyers that 
continues to flow from that decision, but will focus on my two cents 
worth regarding this settlement.
    The proposed settlement offers not only a way to bring this 
protracted process to a close, but also addresses the concern of 
choice and flexibility in the market by giving OEM manufacturers a 
greater choice in how they configure their PC's without the fear of 
retaliation from Microsoft. Further the agreement promises to bring 
a level of openness and transparency to Microsoft's dealing with 
OEM's by having a published schedule which lays down equal terms for 
them within defined bands based on the volume of licenses they move 
and not on their software bundling strategies. Indeed OEM's will 
have much flexibility in what they can do and will only need be 
mindful of whether these things are actually what consumers want 
instead of casting eyes warily toward Redmond. The proposed 
settlement offers similar flexibility to Internet Service Providers.
    The proposed settlement also promises something for application 
developers by mandating full disclosure by Microsoft of the API's in 
their so called ``middleware'' products whilst at the same 
time protecting Microsoft's intellectual property rights, after all 
Microsoft is going to be an important player in the competitive 
ecosystem, offering the only credible competition to the likes of 
AOL, Sony and Palm whilst the likes of these companies keep 
Microsoft on its toes and the only change in play should come from 
new players rising on their merits and not the stifling of any 
player through litigation. This proposed settlement also offers to 
consumers the real prospect of being able to chose if they wish to 
remove certain components from Windows which are currently 
mandatory, it also offers protection for Non-Microsoft 
``middleware'' and requires the consumers consent before 
any Microsoft ``middleware'' can remove any Non-Microsoft 
icons or alter any default associations to Non-Microsoft 
``middleware''.
    To oversee this proposed settlement it is proposed there be 
Technical Committee of three persons to keep a vigilante eye and 
ensure the spirit and the letter of the agreement are being 
enforced, I think the nature of its composition should also ensure 
that it does not overly favour one party or another, something the 
appointment of a special master may run the risk of. It is also good 
to see that either party can have a recourse should they feel that 
any of the TC members is not performing as they should and that they 
are clear procedures defined for their replacement. The proposed 
settlement also makes provision for a Microsoft Internal Compliance 
Officer, someone within Microsoft who would have the responsibility 
for overseeing Microsoft's compliance with the proposed settlement, 
giving the buck somewhere to stop; we also see where they would be 
responsible for a web site that would clearly state how third 
parties can issue complaints to the TC and it also lays out how the 
TC would deal with and process these complaints. Five years seems 
like adequate time for this proposed agreement to run its course but 
should time prove otherwise a two year extension is readily 
available, during which time any new remedies could be explored if 
necessary.
    Though I support this agreement over continued litigation, I 
fear the later may prevail as many powerful interests now seem to 
have a lot vested in the course of litigation and I fear it is us 
consumers who will end up paying for this tiresome business through 
having Microsoft continually drawn away from innovation and toward 
the court and eventually through it having to recover the expenses 
off this exercise and its penalties through its products and quite 
possibly our wallets.
    On a whole I must say that whilst I view antitrust as well 
intentioned I feel it is time

[[Page 28585]]

we started to put our minds to more creative and dynamic 
alternatives, I myself intended to post something for discussion on 
my website once I purchase it and get the software to put it up. On 
a whole I feel the antitrust process takes far too long and lacks 
the dynamism of the market and runs the risk of losing its 
objectivity to political ambition and commercial intrigue, I think 
we could do much to make the market more self regulating, 
competitive and innovative if we could address the monopoly created 
by patent without robbing the inventor of the rewards that often 
drive his innovation. Such new thinking could address not only cases 
in the Computer Industry but also Pharmaceuticals and other 
controversial industries and also allow truly brilliant ideas and 
concepts to become universal and broadly applied to the benefit of 
the consumer and the inventor. Unfortunately that is not for this 
forum at this time, thank you for taking my submission, I hope my 
support will help put this issue to rest.
    Sincerely,
    John Thurlow.



MTC-00029408

From: Raul Cayado
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir,
    I feel that this matter should be laid to rest. For the good of 
our Nation and our economy. How long will they maliciously try to 
extort money from a company that has done so much for our economy. 
In my opinion Microsoft has already paid and settled.
    Sincerely,
    Raul A Cayado



MTC-00029409

From: Harold A Harvey
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 11:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Harold A Harvey
2019 Sage Valley Drive
Richardson, TX 75080-;2359
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 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,
    Harold A Harvey



MTC-00029410

From: Thomas Dell
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 11:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Thomas Dell
4902 W 24 Th. Pl.
Kennewick, WA 99338
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 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,
    Thomas R. Dell
From: David Barrett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:49pm
Subject: Comments of SBC Communications Inc. on the Proposed Final 
Judgment
January 28, 2002
Renata Hesse, Esq.
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Re: United States v. Microsoft Corp.
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Pursuant to the instructions in the Competitive Impact Statement 
in United States v. Microsoft Corp., we are submitting to the 
Department of Justice as an attachment to this e-mail the Comments 
of SBC Communications Inc. on the Proposed Final Judgment. We would 
appreciate your sending a reply to this email at your earliest 
convenience to confirm your receipt of SBC's submission.
    In addition, to guard against the risk of a faulty email 
transmission, we are tonight sending a hard copy of SBC's Comments 
to you via U.S. Postal Service Express Mail.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Very truly yours,
    David A. Barrett
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
X
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 
98-;1232 (CKK)
MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant.
STATE OF NEW YORK ex. rel.
Attorney General ELIOT SPITZER, et al., Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. 
98-;1233 v. (CKK)
MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant.
X
COMMENTS OF SBC COMMUNICATIONS INC. ON THE PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT
PAUL K. MANCINI
Vice President & Assistant General Counsel
PATRICK J. PASCARELLA
Senior Counsel
WILLIAM R. CALDWELL
Senior Counsel
SBC COMMUNICATIONS INC.
175 East Houston
San Antonio, Texas 78205
DONALD L. FLEXNER
DAVID A. BARRETT
STEVEN I. FROOT
NICHOLAS A. GRAVANTE, JR.
HARLAN A. LEVY
BORES, SCHILLER &
FLEXNER LLP
5301 Wisconsin Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20015
Telephone: (202) 237-;2727
Facsimile: (202) 237-;6131
January 28, 2002

                            TABLE OF CONTENTS
 
                                                                    Page
                                                               No.
 
Table of Authorities.............................................   viii
Index of Abbreviations Used to Refer to Court Decisions and           xi
 Pleadings In This Case..........................................
Index of Abbreviated Terms Used In These Comments................   xiii

[[Page 28586]]

 
I. INTRODUCTION..................................................      1
II. A MONOPOLIZATION REMEDY MUST BE TAILORED TO THE NATURE AND        12
 SCOPE OF THE OFFENSE, THE DURABILITY OF THE UNLAWFUL MONOPOLY,
 THE IMPORTANCE OF RESTORING COMPETITION TO THE AFFECTED MARKET
 AND THE LIKELIHOOD OF RECURRING ACTS OF MONOPOLIZATION..........
  A. The Court Of Appeals Sustained A Finding Of Successful And       12
   Longstanding Monopolization In A Crucial Technology Industry..
    1. Microsoft Has Monopolized A Critical Industry.............     12
    2. Microsoft's Monopoly Has Endured For More Than A Decade...     12
    3. Microsoft's Increasing Monopoly Power Is Protected By          14
     Significant Barriers To Entry...............................
    4. Microsoft's Monopoly Has Self-Perpetuating Incentives.....     14
    5. Microsoft Has Shown Itself Able And Willing To Extinguish      15
     Competitive Threats As Fast As They Emerge In A Rapidly
     Changing Technological Environment, And Willing To Harm
     Consumers And Degrade Its Own Products In Order To Exclude
     Competitors From The Market.................................
      a. License Restrictions....................................     16
      b. Commingling Source Code.................................     16
      c. Exclusionary Agreements.................................     17
      d. Actual And Attempted Coercion And Retaliation To Exclude     18
       Competitors...............................................
      e. Efforts To Subvert Sun-compliant Java Technologies......     19
  B. The Remedy In This Section 2 Case Must Be Broad And              21
   Prophylactic, To Prevent Microsoft From Denying Consumers The
   Benefit Of Competition By Retaining Illegally-Maintained
   Monopoly Power................................................
    1. Purpose Of Relief.........................................     21
      a. End Anticompetitive Practices And Prevent Their              21
       Recurrence................................................
      b. Restore Competition (Deny The Fruits Of Wrongdoing).....     23
    2. The Law Requires Effective Measures To Accomplish These        24
     Results.....................................................
      a. Relief Must Neutralize Monopoly Power At Its Source And      24
       Eliminate The Monopolist's Incentive To Exclude
       Competitors From The Market...............................
      b. Relief Must Anticipate New Forms Of Exclusion,               24
       Commensurate With The Evidence Of Microsoft's Incentive To
       Exclude And Its Willingness To Do So At The Expense Of
       Consumers And Its Own Product Quality.....................
      c. Relief Must Prevent Regulatory (Decree) Evasion.........     25
      d. Relief Must Be Of Sufficient Duration To ``Pry          26
       Open'' The Monopolized Market By Allowing Competitive
       Products To Take Root.....................................
        i. It Takes Years For Competitive Alternatives--;Web      26
         Portals, Servers And Middleware--;To Develop, Even
         Assuming Lack Of Obstruction............................
        ii. Software Developers And Other ``Investors''     27
         Need Confidence That The Decree Will Provide Protection
         Long Enough To Give Their Investments A Fair Chance To
         Be Viable...............................................
  C. The Tunney Act Requires Courts To Reject Seriously Deficient     28
   Decrees.......................................................
III. THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT FAILS IN EVERY MATERIAL RESPECT TO       32
 ACHIEVE THE OBJECTIVES OF RELIEF REQUIRED BY THIS CASE AND
 AFFIRMATIVELY PROVDES A ``GREEN LIGHT'' AND AN
 INCENTIVE TO ENGAGE IN EXCLUSIONARY CONDUCT.....................
  A. The Government Has Abandoned Its Prior Effort To Use             32
   Injunctive Relief To ``Pry Open'' The Monopolized
   Market, Conceding That Its Purpose Is Now Merely To Protect
   ``Nascent'' Threats To The Windows Monopoly.........
  B. The Proposed Settlement Is Riddled With Loopholes That           35
   Invite Evasion, Does Not Anticipate And Prohibit New Forms Of
   Exclusionary Conduct To Protect The Windows Monopoly, And
   Discourages The Development Of Competition To Windows.........
    1. The Proposed Settlement Provisions To Protect Middleware       35
     Do Not Adequately Address Microsoft's Past Illegal Conduct,
     Much Less Prevent Its Recurrence In The Future..............
      a. The Definitions In The Decree Effectively Leave              36
       Compliance At Microsoft's Discretion......................
        i. The Definitions Of ``Microsoft Middleware''      36
         And ``Microsoft Middleware Product'' Encourage
         Microsoft To Continue Binding Middleware To Its Monopoly
         Windows Operating System................................
        ii. The Definition Of ``Non-Microsoft Middleware         40
         Product'' Is Too Narrow To Protect The Ability Of
         Products And Competitors To Gain Equal Access To The OEM
         Distribution Channel....................................
        iii. The Definition Of ``Windows Operating System        42
         Product'' Grants Microsoft Unfettered Discretion To
         Decide What Is And What Is Not Part Of Its Operating
         System..................................................
      b. The Settlement Fails To Prohibit Tactics Used By             43
       Microsoft To Foreclose OEM Distribution Of Competing
       Products And Allows That Unlawful Behavior To Continue....
        i. A Prohibition Against Commingling Of Code Is Necessary     44
         To Prevent Microsoft From Continuing To Exclude
         Competition That Threatens The Windows Monopoly.........
        ii. The Proposed Settlement Omits Any Requirement That        48
         Microsoft Offer A Stripped-Down Version Of Windows At A
         Price That Reflects The Value Of The Removed Middleware
         Products................................................
        iii. The Provisions In The Proposed Settlement That           50
         Putport To Foster OEM Flexibility In Product
         Configuration And Middleware Choices Contain Fatal
         Ambiguities And Loopholes...............................
      c. Provisions That Putport To Allow End-Users And OEMS To       54
       Enable Or Remove Middleware Products Are Severely Flawed..
        i. Inability To Actually Remove Microsoft Products From       54
         The Operating System Cripples The Effectiveness Of The
         Decree..................................................
        iii. The Exceptions And Limitations Contained In The End      55
         User/OEM Control Provisions Swallow The Relief Provided
         And Permit Microsoft To Override OEM Or End-User
         Selections Of Preferred Middleware Products.............
          (a) Microsoft Can Alter End-User/OEM Choices...........     56
          (b) Microsoft Can Override End-User/OEM Middleware          57
           Default Choices.......................................
        iii. The Timing Of Implementation Of Section III.H Allows     60
         Microsoft To Reap The Fruits Of Its Past Illegal Conduct
         Without Adequately Limiting Its Conduct Today Or In The
         Future..................................................
    2. Provisions Designed To Protect Interoperability Between        62
     Microsoft Products And Non-Microsoft Products Are Seriously
     Flawed......................................................
      a. The Government's Original Remedy Required Broad And          63
       Meaningful Interoperability Disclosure By Microsoft.......
      b. The Proposed Settlement's Interoperability Disclosure        69
       Requirements Are Wholly Inadequate........................

[[Page 28587]]

 
        i. Important Areas Of Potential Competition In The            69
         Monopolized Market Are Not Included In The
         Interoperability Disclosure Provision...................
          (a) The Proposed Settlement Will Not Achieve Server         70
           Interoperability......................................
          (b) The Settlement Fails To Require Disclosure To           72
           Enable Interoperability Between Internet Explorer And
           Non-Microsoft Servers.................................
          (c) The Proposed Settlement Does Not Contain An             76
           Interoperability Disclosure Provision To Cover Server-
           To-Server Communications..............................
          (d) The Proposed Settlement Does Not Contain                77
           Interoperability Disclosure Provisions To Cover
           ``Embedded Devices''........................
          (e) The Technical Information That Is Required To Be        78
           Disclosed Under The Proposed Settlement Is
           Insufficient To Achieve Interoperability..............
          (f) The Timing Of The Required Disclosure Under The         80
           Proposed Settlement Will Impede, Not Promote,
           Competition...........................................
          (g) Important Terms In The Proposed Settlement Are So       84
           Loosely Defined That They Enable Microsoft To Avoid
           Disclosure............................................
        ii. The Mandatory Licensing Provisions Are Illusory......     85
        iii. The Limitation Upon Disclosure Based On Alleged          88
         Security Concerns Is A Massive Loophole.................
    3. The Proposed Settlement Fails To Remedy The Proven Pattern     91
     Of Unlawful Retaliation, Inducements, And Exclusive Dealing
     Arrangements Used By Microsoft To Maintain Its Monopoly.....
      a. The Government's Settlement Substitutes Weak And Narrow      93
       Protections Of Third Parties For The Strong And Broad
       Provisions Justified By Microsoft's Conduct...............
        i. The Range Of Parties Protected From                        95
         ``Retaliation'' Is Too Limited................
        ii. ``Retaliation'' Is Not Defined.............     96
        iii. The Party Injured By Retaliation Must Prove              97
         Causation...............................................
        iv. Retaliation Not Involving Windows Or Middleware Is        97
         Allowed.................................................
        v. Loopholes Vitiate Even The Existing Limitations.......     97
        vi. Unnecessary And Ambiguous Savings Clauses Undermine       98
         The Decree..............................................
        vii. There Is No Prohibition On Agreements Limiting           98
         Competition.............................................
        viii. There Is No Protection Against Retaliation For          99
         Participating In This Lawsuit...........................
      b. The Proposed Uniform Licensing To OEMs Is Insufficient..     99
        i. Allowing ``Market Development Allowances''      101
         Invites Evasion.........................................
        ii. Microsoft Is Allowed To Keep License Terms Secret....    101
        iii. There Is No Independent Verification Of                 102
         ``Volume'' Discounts..........................
        iv. License Terminations Without Cause Are Allowed.......    102
      c. The Proposed Settlement Fails To Address Exclusive          103
       Dealing Adequately........................................
        i. The Exclusive Dealing Prohibition Is Limited To           105
         Identified Parties Only.................................
        ii. Paying Third Parties To Refrain From Using Non-          105
         Microsoft Products Is Allowed...........................
        iii. Microsoft Can Pay Others To Distribute Its Monopoly     106
         Software................................................
        iv. The Exclusive Dealing Provision Is Riddied With          107
         Loopholes...............................................
    4. The Term of the Settlement Is Too Short--;Even If Its     107
     Deficiencies Were Corrected.................................
    5. The Proposed Settlement Nullifies Effective Enforcement...    111
      a. The Technical Committee Proposal Is Misguided...........    111
      b. All Relevant Employees Should Be Required To Be Trained     113
       In The Decree, But Are Not................................
      c. The Proposed ``Dispute Resolution'' Mechanism     114
       Encourages Delay..........................................
IV. DEFICIENCIES IN THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT CREATE SIGNIFICANT       115
 RISKS FOR SBC'S COMMUNICATIONS AND DATA BUSINESSES, INCLUDING
 SBC'S INTERNET-RELATED BUSINESSES. WHICH DEPEND UPON OPEN
 ARCHITECTURE AND COMPETITIVE ALTERNATIVES.......................
  A. How SBC Competes, Or Will Compete, With Microsoft...........    116
    1. Telephone, Cellular And Internet Service--;5..........    116
    2. Unified Messaging.........................................    118
  B. UMS Is An Integral Part Of The Movement To A Server-Based       120
   Computing Model That Will Erode The Applications Barrier To
   Entry That Currently Shields Microsoft's Monopoly Power.......
  C. The Proposed Settlement Would Allow Microsoft To Render         122
   SBC's Internet-Based Businesses Significantly Less Competitive
    1. The Proposed Settlement Will Allow Microsoft To Block         122
     Consumers' Access To Competing Products And To Impede Their
     Functionality...............................................
        i. Blocking Access to UMS................................    122
        ii. Degrading the Performance of UMS.....................    123
        iii. Denying UMS Access to the Windows Desktop...........    123
    2. Microsoft Can Foreclose Competition By Using Its Ability      124
     To Raise Its Rivals' Costs..................................
    3. Consumers Who Want To Access The Internet Will Have To        125
     Have A Windows Operating System, Which Will Increase The
     Cost To The Consumer For UMS................................
    4. The Proposed Settlement Will Stifle Innovation And Force      126
     Competitors To Sacrifice Quality In Certain Critical Markets
    5. Delayed Disclosure Will Harm Competition..................    129
V--;--;: WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT CHANGES, THE PROPOSED           131
 SETTLEMENT CANNOT SATISFY THE PUBLIC INTEREST STANDARD..........
  A. Changes Must Be Made to RPFJ III.A (OEM and        132
   Other Licensee Retaliation)...................................
  B. A Provision Prohibiting Retaliation By Microsoft Against Any    135
   Party Who Participates In The Litigation Must Be Added........
  C. A Provision Requiring Microsoft To Port ``Office''    135
   To Apple's Operating System Must Be Added.....................
  D. Changes Must Be Made To RPFJ III.B (Uniform        136
   Licensing)....................................................
  E. A Provision Requiring Equal Access to Microsoft Licensing       136
   Terms And Conditions Must Be Added............................
  F. A Provision Prohibiting Microsoft From Enforcing Agreements     137
   That Are Inconsistent With The RPFJ Must Be Added.............
  G. Changes Must Be Made to RPFJ III.C                 137
   (Restrictions on OEM Configuration of PCs)....................
  H. A Provision That Prohibits Microsoft From Commingling Must      141
   Be Added......................................................

[[Page 28588]]

 
  I. A Provision Determining The Relative Prices Of Unbundled        142
   Versions of Windows Must Be Added.............................
  J. A Provision Requiring That Microsoft Continue To Offer          143
   Predecessor Versions Of Windows Must Be Added.................
  K. Changes Must Be Made To RPFJ III.D And       144
   III.E (Interoperability Disclosure)...........................
  L. A Provision That Requires Mandatory Distribution of Java        145
   Must Be Added.................................................
  M. A Provision Prohibiting Interference With Or Degradation Of     145
   Non-Microsoft Middleware Must Be Added........................
  N. A Provision Requiring Microsoft to Comply With Industry         146
   Standards Must Be Added.......................................
  O. A Provision Requiring Open-Source Licensing for Internet        148
   Explorer Must Be Added........................................
  P. Changes Must Be Made To RPFJ III.F (Retaliation    149
   Against Any Third Party)......................................
  Q. A Provision Prohibiting Microsoft From Entering Agreements      151
   That Limit Competition Must Be Added..........................
  R. Changes Must Be Made To RPFJ III.G (Ban on         151
   Exclusive Dealing)............................................
  S. Changes Must Be Made To RPFJ III.H (OEM/End        154
   User Control of the Desktop)..................................
  T. Changes Must Be Made To RPFJ III.I (Mandatory      156
   Licensing)....................................................
  U. Changes Must Be Made To RPFJ III.J (Limitations    156
   on Mandatory Licensing).......................................
  V. Changes Must Be Made To RPFJ IV And V        157
   (Compliance And Enforcement)..................................
  W. Changes Must Be Made To RPFJ VI (Definitions)..    158
VI. CONCLUSION...................................................    160
 


                          TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
 
                Cases                              Page No.
 
Ford Motor Co. v. United States, 405  7, 21, 24, 26
 U.S. 562 (1972).
Hartford-Empire Co. v. United         26
 States, 323 U.S. 386 (1945).
Int'l Salt Co. v. United States, 332  7, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27
 U.S. 392 (1947).
N. Pac. Ry. v. United States, 365     29
 U.S. 1 (1958).
Nat'l Soc'y of Prof'l Eng'rs v.       21, 22
 United States, 435 U.S. 679 (1978).
Otter Tail Power Co. v. United        26
 States, 410 U.S. 366 (1973).
Schine Chain Theaters, Inc. v.        10, 23, 28
 United States, 334 U.S. 110 (1948).
United States v. Am. Tel. & Tel.  ..................................
 Co., 552 F. Supp. 131 (D.D.C.
 1982), aff'd sub nom.
Maryland v. United States, 460 US     6, 11, 24-;32, 116-;117
 1001 (1983).
United States v. American             110
 Broadcasting Co., Inc., Civ. No.
 74-;3600 (RJK), 1980 WL 2013
 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 1980).
United States v. Business Inv. &  113
 Dev. Corp., No. MO-81-CA-20, 1982
 WL 1866 (W.D. Tx. July 16, 1982).
United States v. Crescent Amusement   26
 Co., 323 U.S. 173 (1944).
United States v. Delta Dental of      113
 R.I., No. Civ. A. 96-;113P,
 1997 WL 527669 (D.R.I. Feb. 15,
 1991).
United States v. E.I. du Pont de      21, 23, 25
 Nemours & Co., 366 U.S. 316
 (1961).
United States v. General Elec. Co.,   86, 87
 115 F. Supp. 835 (D.N.J. 1953).
United States v. Glaxo Group Ltd.,    26, 28
 410 U.S. 52 (1973).
United States v. Greyhound, Civ. No.  110
 95-;1852 (RCL), 1996 WL 179570
 (D.D.C. Feb. 27, 1996).
United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384  23, 24, 29
 U.S. 563 (1966).
United States v. GTE Corp., 603 F.    111
 Supp. 730 (D.D.C. 1984).
United States v. Microsoft Corp.,     13, 112
 147 F.3d 935 (D.C. Cir. 1998).
United States v. Microsoft Corp., 56  29, 30, 31, 131, 132
 F.3d 1448 (D.C. Cir. 1995).
United States v. Playmobil USA,       110
 Inc., Civ. No. 95-;0214, 1995
 WL 366524 (D.D.C. May 22, 1955).
United States v. Republic Services,   110
 Inc., Civ No. 00-;2311, 2001
 WL 77103 (D.D.C. Jan. 18, 2001).
United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co.,     22, 23, 28, 30
 340 U.S. 76 (1950).
United States v. United Shoe Mach.    21,24
 Corp., 110 F. Supp. 295 (D. Mass.
 1953), aff'd, 347 U.S. 521 (1954).
United States v. United Shoe Mach.    22, 26
 Corp., 391 U.S. 244 (1968).
United States v. Western Elec. Co.,   ..................................
 569 F. Supp. 1057 (D.D.C. 1983),
 aff'd sub nom..
California v. United States, U.S.     26, 86
 1013 (1983).
United States v. Western Elec. Co.,   113
 Civ. No. 82-;0192 (HHG), 1991
 WL 33559 (D.D.C. Feb. 15, 1991).
United States v. Western Electric     116-;117
 Co., 673 F. Supp. 525 (D.D.C. 1987).
Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine       25
 Research, Inc. 395 U.S. 100 (1969).
Statutes:
  15 U.S.C. 16.........  i, 1, 28, 29
  42 U.S.C.                           125
   251-;59,
   271.
Other Authorities:
  Benjamin Woodhead, Microsoft's      38
   Australian Monopoly? Let the U.S.
   Handle It, iTNews (Nov. 17,
   1999), at http://
   www.itnews,com.au/
   story.cfm?ID=507.
  Browser Bruiser, Chicago Sun        80
   Times, October 27, 2001.
  Byron Acohido, Challenging          4, 118
   Microsoft? It Could Take Moxi,
   USA Today, Jan. 16, 2002.
  Byron Acohido, Microsoft Memo to    90
   Staff: Clobber Linux, USA Today,
   Jan. 4, 2002.
  T. Capers Jones, Estimating         143
   Software Costs Function Point
   Analysis: Measurement Practices
   for Successful Software Projects
   (1998).
  David Garmus and David Herron,      143
   Function Point Analysis:
   Measurement Practices for
   Successful Software Projects
   (2000).
  Department of Justice, Antitrust    108
   Division Manual.
  Don Clark, AOL Sues Microsoft Over  47
   Netscape in Case That Could Seek
   Billions, Wall Street Journal,
   Jan. 23, 2002.
  Experience the Connected Home:      43
   Share One or Many Computers (May
   9, 2001), at http://
   www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/
   evaluation/experiences/
   connectedhome.asp.

[[Page 28589]]

 
  Is Apple Out of the Running in the  14
   Operating Systems War? (Jan. 8,
   2002), at http://
   www.websidestory.com/
   cgibinwss.cgi?corporate&news&
   press 1--;163.
  Jesse Berst, Office Suites for      38
   Free, ZDNet AnchorDesk (March 7,
   1997), at http://www.zdnet.com/
   anchordesk/story/
   story--;743.html.
  Lee Gomes, Linux Campaign Is An     90
   Uphill Battle For Microsoft, Wall
   Street Journal, June 14, 2001.
Microsoft Unveils New Home PC         4, 127
 Experiences with
 ``Freestyle'' and
 ``Mira'', (Jan. 7, 2002),
 at www.Microsoft.com/presspass/
 Press/2002/Jan02/01.
  MSN Shuts Out Other Browsers,       80
   Associated Press, October 28,
   2001.
  Rebecca Buckman, Microsoft is       90
   Suing Linux Start-up Over Lindows
   Name, Wall Street Journal,
   December 24, 2001.
  Wayne Epperson, NT Insurance at a   91
   Premium, HostingTech (August
   2001), at www.hostingtech.com/
   security/01--;08--;nt.
 

INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS USED TO REFER TO COURT DECISIONS AND PLEADINGS 
IN THIS CASE

CA Decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit on Microsoft's appeal from the Final 
Judgment. United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34 (DC Cir. 
2001) (en banc).
CIS Competitive Impact Statement, flied by the Department of 
Justice in United States v. Microsoft Corp., Nos. 98-;1232, 
98-;1233 (CKK). 66 F.R. 59492 (Nov. 28, 2001).
D.Ct. CL Conclusions of Law entered by the District Court on 
April 3, 2000. United States v. Microsoft Corp., 87 F. Supp.2d 30 
(D.DC 2000).
D.Ct. at Findings of Fact entered by the District Court on 
November 5, 1999. United States v. Microsoft Corp., 84 F. Supp.2d 9 
(D.DC 1999).
Felten Decl. Declaration of Edward Felten in support of 
Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Support of Proposed Final Judgment, filed 
in the District Court on April 28, 2000 (corrected May 2, 2000).
Final Judgment Final Judgment, entered by the District Court on 
June 7. 2000. United States v. Microsoft Corp., 97 F. Supp. 2d 59, 
64-;74 (D.DC 2000).
Gov't CA Brief Brief for Appellees United States and the State 
Plaintiffs, filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit on February 9, 2001.
Gov't D.Ct. Memo Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Support of Proposed 
Final Judgment, filed in the District Court on April 28, 2000 
(corrected May 2, 2000).
Gov't D.Ct. Reply Memo Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum in 
Support of Proposed Final Judgment, filed in the District Court on 
May 17, 2000.
Gov't D.Ct. Sum. Resp. Plaintiffs' Summary Response to 
Microsoft's Comments on Revised Proposed Final Judgment, filed in 
the District Court on June 5, 2000.
Henderson Decl. Declaration of Rebecca Henderson in support of 
Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Support of Proposed Final Judgment, 
filed in the District Court on April 28, 2000 (corrected May 2, 
2000).
Litigating States' Plaintiff Litigating States' 
Remedial Proposal, filed in the District Court on December 7, 2001.
Microsoft D.Ct. Com. Defendant Microsoft Corporation's Comments 
on Plaintiffs' Revised Proposed Final Judgment, filed in the 
District Court on May 26, 2000.
Romer Decl. Declaration of Paul M. Romer, in support of 
Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Support of Proposed Final Judgment, 
filed in the District Court on April 28, 2000 (corrected May 2, 
2000).
RPFJ Revised Proposed Final Judgment. The proposed settlement 
entered into by the government and the Settling States with 
Microsoft, filed in the District Court on November 15, 2001.
Shapiro Deck Declaration of Carl Shapiro in support of 
Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Suppert of Proposed Final Judgment, 
filed in the District Court on April 28, 2000 (corrected May 2, 
2000).

INDEX OF ABBREVIATED TERMS USED IN THESE COMMENTS

API Application Programming Interface
HTML Hypertext Markup Language
IAP Internet Access Provider
ICP Internet Content Provider
IE Internet Explorer
ISP Internet Service Provider
ISV Independent Software Vendor
JVM Java Virtual Machine
OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer
OLS Online Service Provider
PC Personal computer
PDA Personal Digital Assistant
    SBC Communications Inc. (``SBC'') respectfully submits 
the following comments pursuant to Sections 2(b) and 2(d) of the 
Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 
16(b)-;(h), relating to the revised proposed Final 
Judgment that was agreed to on November 6, 2001, by the United 
States and certain state plaintiffs in these actions on the one 
hand, and defendant Microsoft Corporation (``Microsoft'') 
on the other (the ``proposed settlement'').

1. INTRODUCTION

    The history of Sherman Act enforcement has witnessed few 
unlawful monopolies as durable, resilient and exclusionary as 
Microsoft's. This much is clear from the trial record, the District 
Court's monopoly maintenance findings and the Court of 
Appeals' affirmance. Far from providing reassurance that 
changes in technology will end Microsoft's stranglehold over 
operating system and middleware competition, or that the company's 
monopoly will be subject to serious competitive pressures when the 
proposed settlement's five-year term expires, the record 
demonstrates the exact opposite. Microsoft's continuing ability to 
commingle its browser and operating system, which the settlement 
ignores, leaves Microsoft with the incentive and ability not only to 
destroy traditional middleware threats to its operating system 
monopoly, but also to exercise anticompetitive control over the 
Internet, where server networks currently not dependent on Windows 
pose the greatest threat to the Microsoft monopoly. The consequences 
of failing to restrain an ever-expanding Microsoft operating system 
monopoly--;now at over 95% market share--;do not, however, 
fall solely upon software producers whose competitive assaults might 
erode that overwhelming market domination. Nothing in the proposed 
settlement would stop the threat that Microsoft's adjudicated and 
unlawfully-maintained monopoly poses to the very heart of consumer 
choice in the American economy. The settlement ignores Microsoft's 
ability to effectively destroy free consumer choice among the far 
greater array of businesses that use electronic means of 
communication--;such as telecommunications services (local, long 
distance and cellular), Internet access, voice messaging, instant 
messaging, video and music services, e-commerce, interactive games, 
to name a few. The settlement would allow Microsoft to abuse its 
illegally-maintained control of operating systems by becoming the 
ultimate ``gatekeeper,'' controlling the bottleneck that 
both gives businesses in these critical related markets (whether 
established or still emerging) access to potential customers, and 
gives consumers the means to reach the providers that they choose to 
deal with.
    Just as Microsoft has for years successfully imposed on 
consumers its own products and services, irrespective of the 
comparative merits of competing products it has excluded from the 
market, Microsoft will--;without the kind of strong relief 
required to break its operating system monopoly--;be in a 
position to repeat its anticompetitive strategy in other markets. 
Unchecked, Microsoft will favor its own and its partners' 
services, exclude competitors' products and services from 
access to consumers, and degrade its rivals'' services and 
raise their costs (by charging a toll, imposing a tee for listing as 
an available service or creating an interoperability obstacle). 
Because potential customers will have to pass through a Microsoft 
operating system (whether embedded in a PC, a cellular

[[Page 28590]]

phone, a set-top box or a PDA), Microsoft will retain the ability to 
exclude or marginalize all manner of telephone services, messaging 
products, video or music offerings, Internet services, and other 
``utilities'' of modem life. In this way, the Microsoft 
monopoly threatens to destroy the vast panoply of consumer choice 
among the myriad sources that create and distribute communications 
and entertainment products and services. The proposed settlement 
does virtually nothing to lessen Microsoft's ability to maintain its 
operating system monopoly and to prevent its enhancement by 
Microsoft's impeding effective competition for all the products and 
services that will have to be accessed through Microsoft's monopoly 
platform.
    SBC is one of the businesses that will be significantly 
impacted. Through its affiliates, SBC provides voice and data 
communications services throughout the United States and 
internationally. Some of these services are Internet-based; others 
are not. Some of SBC's services (such as its unified messaging 
service, discussed below) would erode Microsoft's operating system 
monopoly; others will not. All, however, are at risk if Microsoft is 
not prevented from maintaining and expanding its operating system 
monopoly. Thus, while SBC devotes a significant portion of its 
comments to explaining why curing the palpable deficiencies in the 
proposed settlement is essential to protect Internet-based services 
that could erode the Microsoft monopoly, including SBC's own 
ventures, those deficiencies are of equal importance to SBC's core 
communications businesses.
    The reason why the effects of the Microsoft monopoly reach so 
far can be summed up in a single 
word--;``convergence.'' Convergence refers to the 
development, for home or office use, of devices or platforms that 
will provide consumers with multiple communications, computing and 
entertainment products and services. In order to perform these 
functions, all such devices or platforms--;including personal 
computers, PDAs, wireless phones and set-top boxes--;need to 
utilize operating systems, whether installed in the device itself or 
residing on Internet servers. By maintaining and expanding its 
operating system monopoly across platforms, Microsoft can establish 
its position as ``gatekeeper'' to all such forms of 
communications, computing and entertainment services. And as 
gatekeeper, Microsoft will be in a position to direct customers 
using these platforms toward its services, to degrade or block 
access to competitors' services, and to impose costs on those 
competitors it cannot completely eliminate. By controlling all of 
these communications gateways, Microsoft will not only preserve its 
operating system monopoly against all serious threats, it will 
substantially lessen competition in the provision of innovative new 
``convergent'' services.
    For example, competition is now growing to reach consumers, 
through ``gateway'' devices such as PCs or television set-
top boxes, with broadband communications signals that can carry 
everything from TV programming to Internet content to telephone 
conversations. An estimated 10 million American homes may use such 
devices next year and 25 million by 2006. See Byron Acohido, 
Challenging Microsoft? It Could Take Moxi, USA Today, Jan. 16, 2002, 
at B-;3. Microsoft has already announced that it is developing 
an extension to Windows XP that will allow PCs to function in this 
manner. Id.; Microsoft Unveils New Home PC Experiences with 
``Freestyle'' and ``Mira'' (Jan. 7, 2002), at 
www.Microsoft.com/presspass/Press/2002/Jan02/01. Unfettered by the 
proposed settlement, Microsoft can thus use its illegal operating 
system monopoly to become the literal communications gateway into 
and out of the American home or office. It then will have enormous 
power over the products and services consumers use to communicate 
with each other, to do their work and to entertain themselves.
    In this memorandum, SBC addresses the numerous ways in which the 
proposed settlement fails to meet a paramount goal of relief in this 
case: To ``pry open to competition'' in the PC operating 
system market that Microsoft has dominated for over a decade by 
using blatantly exclusionary tactics.
    The following facts are now beyond dispute in this 
proceeding'.
    First, Microsoft's monopoly has been extraordinarily durable, 
having prospered for over a decade (D.Ct. at 35), having 
increased steadily to over a 95% share even during the litigation 
(CA at 54; D.Ct. at 35), and having enjoyed the continuing 
protection of significant barriers to entry. See CA at 54-;56 
(``Because the applications barrier to entry protects a 
dominant operating system irrespective of quality, it gives 
Microsoft power to stave off even superior new rivals''); D.Ct. 
at 36-;44, 61 (``Microsoft could significantly 
restrict its investment in innovation and still not face a viable 
alternative to Windows for several years . . . . 
``).
    Second, Microsoft's monopoly has created not only the power, but 
also the incentive, to exclude competition: every technological 
innovation that emerged to challenge Microsoft's dominance was met 
with a successful strategy of anticompetitive exclusion. Microsoft 
was able to ``extinguish,'' perhaps permanently, the two 
greatest innovative threats to its dominance that arose in the 
1990's--;Netscape and Java. CIS at 16-;17; see also CA at 
76-;80 (``Microsoft's ultimate objective was to thwart 
Java's [and Netscape's] threat to Microsoft's monopoly;'' it 
adopted as strategic goals to ``kill cross-platform Java'' 
and interfere with the ability of Netscape's browser to interoperate 
with Microsoft products); D.Ct. at 68-;77. So long 
as Microsoft retains the power and incentive to exclude the 
competitive threats of the 21st century, economic theory predicts, 
and history demonstrates, that it will seek to evade any regulatory 
barriers placed in its path. Thus, the prospect of innovation offers 
no solace to restoring competition, only a sure target for 
Microsoft's exclusionary conduct.
    Third, Microsoft's incentive to engage in calculated predation 
is so strong that it readily harms consumers and degrades its own 
products to achieve anticompetitive exclusion. D.Ct. at 174 
(finding that by commingling ``Microsoft has unjustifiably 
jeopardized the stability and security of the operating 
system''), 408-;12 (highlighting harm 
inflicted upon consumers); CA at 62, 65 (affirming district court 
findings of consumer harm). It is also revealed in a ``take no 
prisoners'' approach in which deception, threats, attempts to 
conspire and degradation of middleware connections were used to 
stifle competition. CA at 73, 75-;77. Nothing in the 
foreseeable future, much less in the monopoly maintenance record, 
suggests that marketplace or technological developments alone will 
suffice to curb Microsoft's market power, its incentive to exclude 
and its proven ability and willingness to do so ruthlessly.
    Finally, Microsoft's monopoly affects the country's most 
powerful engine of national economic prosperity and 
productivity--;the processing and communication of information. 
Where monopolization has injured industries of comparable 
importance, the future of competition has never before been 
entrusted to illusory promises by the offending firm or to uncertain 
marketplace developments, unprotected by judicial supervision from 
recurrent acts of exclusion. See United States v. Am. Tel. & 
Tel. Co., 552 F. Supp. 131,215-;17 (D.DC 1982), aff'd sub nom. 
Maryland v. United States, 460 U.S. 1001 (1983) 
(``AT&T'') (rejecting proposed consent decree and 
ordering its modification based, in part, on the ``complexity 
and magnitude'' of the decree and the decree's effect ``on 
the largest corporation in the world ... the entire 
telecommunications industry, the computer industry... and thus the 
interests of literally millions of individuals'').
    That is why in monopolization cases the law demands that relief 
must decisively end the anticompetitive practices, prevent their 
recurrence and extension into new markets, and restore competition. 
``Antitrust relief should unfetter a market from 
anticompetitive conduct and `pry open to competition a market 
that has been closed by defendants' illegal 
restraints.''' Ford Motor Co. v. United States, 405 U.S. 
562, 577-;78 (1972) (citation omitted). If a decree does not 
effectively pry a market open to competition, ``the Government 
has won a lawsuit and lost a cause.'' Int'l Salt Co. v. United 
States, 332 U.S. 392, 401 (1947). To restore competition, therefore, 
the relief must take account of all the factors relevant to the 
offense, including in particular the likely duration of the monopoly 
power, which, of course, is the wellspring of the incentive as well 
as the ability to exclude. See Ford Motor Co., 405 U.S. at 575 
(affirming ten-year ban on Ford's manufacture of spark plugs; 
prohibition was a ``necessary step toward the restoration of 
the status quo ante'' in the market). The government has 
repeatedly embraced the foregoing standards in this case (see, 
.c.g., Govt. D.Ct. Memo. at 24; CIS at 3), but its proposed 
settlement fails their purposes. The ,government has abandoned, 
without explanation, injunctive relief that it urged upon the 
District Court as essential to curb Microsoft's appetite for 
anticompetitive conduct and has agreed to a decree filled with 
loopholes. For example, although the

[[Page 28591]]

Court of Appeals found commingling of browser and operating system 
code to be unlawful acts of monopoly maintenance, and the government 
advocated that such commingling be prohibited as ``an 
especially potent competitive weapon for Microsoft... to target 
competing middleware threats,'' Gov't D.Ct. Reply Memo at 61, 
the proposed settlement does not prohibit such conduct. Similarly, 
although the Department of Justice Antitrust Division Manual 
provides that the government ``should not negotiate any decree 
of less than ten years' duration'' and the government in 
this case objected to Microsoft's initial proposal for a four-year 
decree because ``there is no sound justification for entering a 
decree of shorter duration,'' the remedies in the proposed 
settlement are to last only five years.
    The government's retreat from established antitrust policy and 
from its prior opposition to Microsoft's remedial proposals has 
grave implications for a competitive economy and for SBC. Not only 
is Microsoft allowed to repeat conduct, previously found 
anticompetitive, to protect its operating system monopoly from 
middleware sources of competition, but it is free to do so where the 
courts have already recognized an even more powerful threat exists, 
namely from the Internet. D.Ct. at 56, 59-;60 
(cited with approval in CA at 79). Since Internet servers can 
perform computing functions formerly accomplished only by PCs, 
networks of servers and PCs that freely interoperate (or 
``talk'' to each other)--;regardless of the type of 
operating system software that they use--;are a platform for 
applications not dependent on Windows. This means that the 
combination of inexpensive computers or handheld devices (like a 
``dumb'' PC. a cellphone, or a PDA) and smart server 
networks connected to the Internet can break the monopoly power of 
Microsoft's PC operating system by offering a server network 
alternative that will work with any operating system and provide 
more and better application choices at less cost. D.Ct. at 
22-;27 (cited with approval in CA at 52), 
56, 59-;60 (``[T]he rise of the Internet... 
has fueled the growth of server-based computing, middleware, and 
open-source software development. Working together, these nascent 
paradigms could oust the PC operating system from its position as 
the primary platform for applications development and the main 
interface between users and their computers.'').
    Yet nothing in the government's settlement prevents Microsoft 
from turning an open Internet into a closed Microsoft environment 
simply by doing two things: (1) commingling its browser, Internet 
Explorer (``IE''), with its Windows operating system; and 
(2) changing the protocol its browser uses to ``talk'' to 
Internet servers to an undisclosed proprietary standard that will 
only work effectively with Microsoft servers. Because of the 
dominance of Microsoft's browser (currently 91% of all browser 
usage), all web servers would then be forced to have a Microsoft 
server operating system in order for the servers, and the web sites 
they host, to be accessible to the vast majority of users. In turn, 
all consumers and businesses that wish to access the Internet will 
be forced to purchase a Windows operating system in order to utilize 
Microsoft's browser. Nothing in the decree prevents this scenario, 
because Microsoft is free to use its illegally maintained monopoly 
power to force servers to interoperate only with Windows, such that 
Microsoft becomes the Internet gatekeeper of a once open and 
competitive system. Microsoft's operating system monopoly would 
thereby become still more powerful and durable, as another threat to 
its dominance is destroyed. In this way, the applications barrier to 
entry that protects the Windows monopoly will extend to the 
Internet.
    The reality of this threat for the future competitiveness of 
Internet-based businesses has a direct bearing on a wide range of 
Microsoft's potential and actual competitors, including SBC. Through 
its affiliates, SBC provides Internet access and Internet services 
to customers. SBC is currently developing several new Internet-based 
businesses, most importantly its Unified Messaging Service 
(``UMS''), which will compete directly with specific 
Microsoft products and services. UMS will allow retrieval of voice, 
e-mail and fax messages from anywhere in the world, using any 
computer or device running on any operating system. The proposed 
settlement, however, allows Microsoft to make SBC's UMS product 
significantly less competitive by taking the two simple steps 
outlined above. In these circumstances, only Microsoft server 
operating systems would be interoperable with the vast majority of 
other devices that access the Internet, and Microsoft would be able 
to use its server control to discriminate against its competitors.
    As this example shows, the omissions and loopholes in the 
proposed settlement are of no small importance; they have drastic 
consequences for a competitive economy. So too does the decision to 
limit the settlement to only five years. The trial court recognized 
in findings sustained by the Court of Appeals that competitive 
alternatives to the Microsoft operating system, such as web portals, 
servers and middleware, take years to develop as viable threats, yet 
the proposed decree ends almost as soon as it starts--;in only 
five years overall, with some provisions in effect for only four 
years. No sensible competitor would invest in technology 
improvements to the maximum extent necessary to challenge 
Microsoft--;innovations that require years to succeed absent 
predation--;when the decree is neither strong enough, nor long 
enough, to protect them. Yet the government breaks with its own 
policy of requiring decrees with ten-year terms, despite the fact 
that Microsoft's monopoly has existed for more than a decade and its 
unlawful conduct has spanned a period nearly as long.
    Equally important, there is nothing in the decree to jump start 
competition, much less to ``pry open'' the monopolized 
market to give consumers the benefit of competition that would have 
existed from the likes of Netscape and Java had Microsoft's 
exclusionary conduct not ``extinguished'' them. See Schine 
Chain Theaters, Inc. v. United States, 334 U.S. 110, 128 (1948) (an 
injunction against future violations is inadequate when it allows 
the monopolist to retain its ``unlawfully built 
empires''). Under the Tunney Act, the ``public 
interest,'' see 15 U.S.C. 16(e), is not served by 
a settlement that allows a monopolist to pursue conduct already 
adjudicated illegal, that leaves open easy escape routes from the 
proposed decree's proscriptions, and that utterly fails to restore 
competition to the monopolized market.
    When, as here, there is an adjudicated record of serious 
competitive harm (monopolization) and wrongdoing (anticompetitive 
exclusion), the responsibility to protect the public from an 
inadequate settlement is high, and a reviewing court has broad power 
to do so. AT&T, 552 F. Supp. at 151-;53. As the District 
Court has said, ``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.'' United States v. Microsoft Corp., Civ. Nos. 
98-;1232, 98-;1233 (CKK), Transcript of Proceedings at 9 
(Sept. 28, 2001).
    For the reasons set forth below, approval of the proposed decree 
cannot be squared with ten years of government litigation that 
culminated in resounding appellate holdings of major antitrust 
offenses. The fact that adverse antitrust consequences will result 
is clear from the face of the proposed settlement, as well as by 
comparison to the injunctive provisions defended by the government 
in its earlier proposed litigated judgment. In fact, adoption of 
this proposed settlement would be worse than no decree at all, for 
its negotiated omissions and concessions allow conduct found illegal 
in the past to continue--;such as commingling of code--;and 
thus would appear to prevent even the government from attacking such 
decree-sanctioned behavior during its term. Such ambiguity 
surrounding the government's enforcement intentions is in itself 
affirmatively harmful to the public interest.
    II. A MONOP0LIZATION REMEDY MUST RE TAILORED TO THE NATURE AND 
SCOPE OF THE OFFENSE, THE DURABILITY OF THE UNLAWFUL MONOPOLY, THE 
IMPORTANCE OF RESTORING COMPETITION TO THE AFFECTED MARKET AND THE 
LIKELIHOOD OF RECURRING ACTS OF MONOPOLIZATION
    A. The Court Of Appeals Sustained A Finding Of Successful And 
Longstanding Monopolization In A Crucial Technology Industry
    The proposed settlement in this case must be evaluated in light 
of the Court of Appeals' affirmance of the District Court's 
conclusion, supported by an overwhelming factual record, that 
Microsoft is guilty of a panoply of illegal activities to maintain 
and extend its monopoly in the market for Intel-compatible PC 
operating systems. Microsoft's conduct inflicted significant harm on 
consumers and competition in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman 
Act. CA at 50-;80.
    1. Microsoft Has Monopolized A Critical Industry
    Microsoft is the world's largest supplier of computer software 
for PCs and, in particular, dominates the market for Intel-
compatible PC

[[Page 28592]]

operating systems software world-wide. Although it has the second-
largest market capitalization among American companies, Microsoft's 
importance extends beyond its financial success, because it is a 
linchpin of the computer industry (including hardware, peripherals, 
software and data services), and the computer industry is critical 
to the functioning of a competitive American economy. See, e.g., 
Henderson Decl. 87-;98; Romer Decl. 17.
    2. Microsoft's Monopoly Has Endured For More Than A Decade
    Microsoft's operating systems monopoly is an enduring one, 
persisting for over a decade despite what the Court of Appeals has 
described as a ``technologically dynamic market.'' CA at 
49. Over that same period, the government has been forced to spend 
resources on a continuous basis to investigate, and then to 
prosecute, Microsoft for its illegal conduct. The FTC began 
investigating Microsoft's acquisition and maintenance of monopoly 
power in the operating systems market in 1990, although it did not 
bring charges against the company. United States v. Microsoft Corp., 
56 F.3d at 1448, 1458 (DC Cir. 1995). Using the FTC's extensive 
investigation file as a starting point, the Antitrust Division of 
the Justice Department initiated its own investigation, and in July 
1994 filed a civil complaint under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman 
Act, charging, inter alia, that Microsoft unlawfully maintained a 
monopoly of operating systems for Intel-compatible PCs. Id. That 
case was settled by a consent decree, thereby avoiding trial on the 
merits.
    Three years later, the Justice Department filed a civil contempt 
action against Microsoft on the ground that it had violated the 
decree. On appeal from the grant of a preliminary injunction, the 
Court of Appeals ruled that Microsoft had not violated the relevant 
provision of the consent decree, but reserved the question of 
whether the company's bundling of Internet Explorer with the Windows 
operating system violated the antitrust laws. United States v. 
Microsoft Corp., 147 F.3d 935,950 n.14 (DC Cir. 1998). The complaint 
that gives rise to the instant proceeding was filed in May 1998 by 
the Justice Department and a group of State plaintiffs, again 
alleging, inter alia, unlawful maintenance of a monopoly in the PC 
operating system market in violation of Sherman Act 2. CA 
at 47.
    The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's finding that 
Microsoft's Windows operating system accounts for over 95% of the 
Intel-compatible PC operating system market. CA at 54. As the 
District Court found:

    Microsoft possesses a dominant, persistent, and increasing share 
of the worldwide market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems. 
Every year for the last decade, Microsoft's share of the market ... 
has stood above 90 percent. For the last couple of years, the figure 
has been at least 95 percent, and analysts predict that the share 
will climb even higher over the next few years. Even if Apple's Mac 
OS were included in the relevant market, Microsoft's share would 
still stand well above 80 percent.
    D.Ct. at 35.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\As recently as January 2002, Microsoft controlled over 
96% of the entire PC operating system market, and Apple's Macintosh 
operating system had only a 2% share. Is Apple Out of the Running in 
the Operating Systems War? (Jan. 8, 2002), at http://
www.websidestory.com/cgi-binwss.cgi? corporate 
&news&press_l_163.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Microsoft's Increasing Monopoly Power Is Protected By 
Significant Barriers To Entry
    The Court of Appeals held that not only was Microsoft's 
operating system monopoly virtually complete as measured by market 
share, but also that the monopoly's increasing power and scope 
derives from a structural barrier--;the ``applications 
barrier to entry''--;that protects the company's future 
monopoly position even as against superior rivals. The Court held 
that this barrier to entry

    stems from two characteristics of the software market: (1) most 
consumers prefer operating systems for which a large number of 
applications have already been written; and (2) most developers 
prefer to write for operating systems that already have a 
substantial consumer base. This ``chicken-and-egg'' 
situation ensures that applications will continue to be written for 
the already dominant Windows, which in turn ensures that consumers 
will continue to prefer it over other operating systems.

    CA at 55 (citations omitted). The Court of Appeals went on to 
hold that even if Windows may have gained its initial dominance 
through superior foresight or quality, Microsoft had maintained its 
position through means other than competition on the merits. 
``Because the applications barrier to entry protects a dominant 
operating system irrespective of quality, it gives Microsoft power 
to stave off even superior new rivals.'' CA at 56.
    4. Microsoft's Monopoly Has Self-Perpetuating Incentives
    The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's findings 
regarding a variety of anticompetitive acts by Microsoft that were 
designed to maintain its monopoly by preventing the effective 
distribution and use of middleware products--;including 
Netscape's ``Navigator'' browser and the Java cross-
platform technologies--;that might threaten the Windows 
operating system monopoly. The Court of Appeals noted with approval 
the District Court's conclusion that Microsoft's monopoly gives the 
firm incentives to perpetuate the monopoly by a pattern of 
exclusionary conduct. CA at 58. As the District Court concluded, 
``over the past several years, Microsoft has comported itself 
in a way that could only be consistent with rational behavior for a 
profit-maximizing firm if the firm knew that it possessed monopoly 
power, and if it was motivated by a desire to preserve the barrier 
to entry protecting that power.'' D.Ct. CL at 37.
    5. Microsoft Has Shown Itself Able And Willing To Extinguish 
Competitive Threats As Fast As They Emerge In A Rapidly Changing 
Technological Environment, And Willing To Harm Consumers And Degrade 
Its Own Products In Order To Exclude Competitors From The Market
    In its successful efforts to thwart Netscape and Java, Microsoft 
demonstrated its ability to extinguish competitive threats to its 
monopoly as fast as they emerged in a rapidly changing technological 
environment. Microsoft's conduct also evidenced a remarkable 
willingness to hurt consumers and degrade its own products where 
necessary to accomplish the exclusion of competitive threats to its 
dominance.
    Both Netscape and Java threatened to facilitate competition in 
operating systems by permitting software applications developers to 
write programs for the application programming interfaces (APIs) 
exposed by these middleware products, which in turn were capable of 
running not only on Windows, but on other operating systems. If such 
middleware were permitted to thrive, such ``cross-
platform'' applications would have the potential to overcome 
the applications barrier to entry upon which Microsoft's operating 
system monopoly rests. CA at 53, 60.
    The Court of Appeals upheld the District Court's findings and 
conclusions that Microsoft engaged in the following unlawful conduct 
in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act for the purpose of 
maintaining its PC operating system monopoly:
    a. License Restrictions
    Microsoft prevented OEMs from removing visible means of user 
access to Microsoft's browser, IE, which thwarted the distribution 
of rival browsers, primarily Netscape Navigator. CA at 59-;61.
    Microsoft prohibited OEMs from modifying the initial boot 
sequence, from adding icons or folders different in size or shape 
from those supplied by Microsoft, and from using the desktop to 
promote rival products, thereby preventing OEMs from promoting 
either browsers or Internet access providers that competed with 
Microsoft's own Internet access service and that often used 
Navigator rather than IE. Microsoft's anticompetitive conduct 
reduced consumer choice for the sole purpose of thwarting a 
middleware threat to Microsoft's monopoly. CA at 61-;64.
    b. Commingling Source Code
    By placing computer code specific to the web browsing function 
in the same computer program ``files'' as code supplying 
operating system functions (i.e., by ``commingling'' the 
computer code), Microsoft ensured that the deletion of files 
containing browsing-specific routines would also delete vital 
operating system routines and cripple Windows' performance. By 
preventing OEMs from deleting IE, Microsoft deterred OEMs from pre-
installing a second browser because doing so would increase the 
OEM's product and support costs. Had removal of IE been an option, 
OEMs could have decided to pre-install Navigator. CA at 66. This 
technological binding of IE to Windows not only reduced consumer 
choice in the browser market, but also forced consumers to buy a 
``loaded'' and arguably slower operating system. The Court 
of Appeals found that this had no purpose other than to maintain 
Microsoft's monopoly.
    When Microsoft modified Windows 95 to produce the Windows 98 
operating system, it took IE out of the Add/Remove Programs utility, 
which prevented the removal of IE from the operating system. This 
had the effect of further curtailing end-user control

[[Page 28593]]

over the desktop, and reducing usage of rival browser products for 
the protection of its operating system monopoly. CA at 65.
    c. Exclusionary Agreements
    To extinguish the competitive threat posed to Microsoft's 
monopoly by Internet, Access Providers (lAPs) and online 
services--;the other major channel through which browsers could 
be distributed to consumers--;Microsoft entered into agreements 
with 14 of the 15 largest IAPs in North America under which the IAPs 
offered their subscribers IE as either the default browser or the 
only browser. CA at 68.
    Microsoft agreed with AOL (the largest IAP) to place the AOL 
icon in the online service folder on the Windows desktop, in return 
for which AOL was forced to agree not to promote any non-IE browser, 
or software using a non-IE browser, except at the customer's 
request, and even then not to supply more than 15% of its 
subscribers with a browser other than IE. Because AOL accounted for 
a substantial portion of all existing Internet access subscriptions, 
these provisions were highly exclusionary. CA at 70-;71.
    During the period 199%9, Microsoft made dozens of ``First 
Wave'' agreements with Internet Software Vendors 
(``ISVs''), giving them free licenses to bundle IE with 
their software and preferential support in the form of access to 
technical information and the right to use Microsoft seals of 
approval. In exchange, the ISVs agreed to use IE as the default 
browsing software for any software that they developed with a 
hypertext-based user interface and to use Microsoft's ``HTML 
Help,'' accessible only with IE, to implement their 
applications' help systems. The effect of those deals was to 
ensure that many of the most popular Internet applications relied on 
browsing technologies found only in Windows, which increased the 
likelihood that millions of consumers using applications designed by 
those ISVs would use IE instead of Navigator. The agreements with 
ISVs further foreclosed rival browser distribution and curtailed the 
middleware threat to the Windows monopoly. CA at 71-;72.
    d. Actual And Attempted Coercion And Retaliation To Exclude 
Competitors
    Microsoft coerced Apple to drop Navigator as the standard 
browser installed on its PCs, and to substitute IE as the default 
browser on its Macintosh operating system. Microsoft threatened to 
cut off production of its ``Office'' business productivity 
software for Apple PCs (90% of Apple Office suite users relied on 
the Microsoft version of Office designed for the Macintosh operating 
system), an action that had no purpose but to maintain Microsoft's 
operating system monopoly while hurting consumers. Apple was forced 
to agree to bundle the most current version of IE to the Macintosh 
operating system for as long as Microsoft continued to support Mac 
Office, and promised not to promote Navigator on its desktop. CA at 
72-;74.
    Microsoft retaliated against Netscape when Netscape refused to 
capitulate to Microsoft's demands that it forgo development of 
Navigator technology as a middleware platform. Microsoft sought to 
convince Netscape to enter into an illegal market division agreement 
whereby Microsoft would treat Netscape as a ``preferred 
ISV'' in exchange for Netscape developing Navigator to rely on 
Microsoft's platform-level Internet technologies. (At the time of 
Microsoft's proposal, Navigator was the only browser product with a 
significant share of the market and the potential to weaken the 
applications barrier to entry.) When Netscape refused this unlawful 
arrangement, Microsoft punished Netscape by delaying disclosure of 
the technical information needed to make Navigator interoperable 
with Windows, which forced Netscape to postpone release of its new 
browser. As a result, Netscape was excluded from most of the 1995 
holiday selling season. D.Ct. at 79-;91.
    e. Efforts To Subvert Sun-compliant Java Technologies
    Sun Microsystems created Java,\2\ a type of middleware that 
would support all applications regardless of the operating system 
they were written for. CA at 74. Programs calling upon Java's APIs 
will run on any computer that itself is configured for Java; thus, 
Java enabled software developers to write applications programs that 
could be run on different operating systems with relative ease. In 
May 1995, Netscape agreed with Sun to distribute Java with every 
copy of Navigator, which at that time was the dominant browser. 
Microsoft violated 2 in three separate ways in a 
successful effort to extinguish Java as a competing middleware 
platform:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\When this document refers to ``Java'' 
without any adjectives or other modifiers, it refers to Sun 
Microsystems' product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ``First Wave'' Agreements: The First Wave Agreements 
were contracts between Microsoft and ISVs for the distribution of 
Microsoft's proprietary version of the Java Virtual Machine 
(``JVM''). The agreements required developers to make 
Microsoft's JVM the default in the programs they developed, in 
exchange for Microsoft's technical support and other inducements. CA 
at 75-;76.
    Deception of Java Developers: Microsoft offered software 
developers various development tools that purportedly would assist 
ISVs in designing Java applications, but concealed the fact that 
aspects of the code generated by the design tools could only be 
executed properly by Microsoft's JVM. The result was that many 
developers, relying on Microsoft's public commitment to cooperate 
with Sun, unwittingly used the programming tools to write Java 
applications that ran only on Windows, and not other platforms. 
Microsoft maintained this deception in order to ``kill cross-
platform Java by grow[ing] the polluted Java market.'' CA at 
76-;77. This conduct injured consumers by fraudulently inducing 
development of corrupted versions of otherwise successful cross-
platform middleware, for the sole purpose of protecting the 
Microsoft monopoly. Id.
    Microsoft's Threat to Intel: Intel and Sun had entered into an 
agreement to create a high-performance, Windows-compatible JVM, and 
by 1996, Intel had developed a JVM that complied with Sun's cross-
platform standards. Starting in 1995, Microsoft's senior management 
repeatedly requested that Intel stop its cooperation with Sun, and 
ultimately threatened Intel that if it did not abandon its support 
of Sun- compliant Java, Microsoft would begin supporting Intel 
competitors and refuse to distribute Intel technologies bundled with 
Windows. Intel finally capitulated in 1997. CA at 77-;78.
    B. The Remedy In This Section 2 Case Must Be Broad And 
Prophylactic, To Prevent Microsoft From Denying Consumers The 
Benefit Of Competition By Retaining Illegally-Maintained Monopoly 
Power
    1. Purpose Of Relief
    As the government acknowledges in the Competitive Impact 
Statement, appropriate injunctive relief here must accomplish three 
things: ``(1) end the unlawful conduct; (2) avoid a recurrence 
of the violation' and others like it; and (3) undo its 
anticompetitive consequences.'' CIS at 24 (citing Nat'l Soc'y 
of Prof'l Eng'rs v. United States, 435 U.S. 679, 697 (1978); United 
States v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 366 U.S. 316, 326 
(1961); Int'l Salt Co., 332 U.S. at 401); CA at 107. See also Gov't 
D.Ct. Memo at 24 (``Permanent injunctive relief ordered in a 
Sherman Act case must be both forward-looking and remedial. The 
decree must (i) end the violation, (ii) `avoid a recurrence of 
the violation' and others like it and (iii) restore 
competition to the market.''). Any remedy must be broad in 
scope and prophylactic in nature so that competition is restored and 
Microsoft is effectively precluded from further exercise of its 
monopoly power, even as new products are developed and circumstances 
in the market change.
    a. End Anticompetitive Practices And Prevent Their Recurrence
    Any settlement here must be structured to end anticompetitive 
practices and not merely to prevent repetition of the same illegal 
conduct. As the Court of Appeals pointedly instructed:

    [A] remedies decree... must seek to ``unfetter a market 
from anti- competitive 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.''

    CA at 103 (citations omitted) (quoting Ford Motor Co., 405 U.S. 
562; United States v. United Shoe Mach. Corp., 391 U.S. 244 (1968)). 
In the proceedings on remand, the District Court has already 
recognized that any remedy, in order to be adequate, must go beyond 
merely prohibiting the conduct in which Microsoft has previously 
engaged:

    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 
.... [T]he remedy may range broadly through the practices connected 
with the acts actually found to be illegal. 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.

    Microsoft, Transcript of Proceedings at 9 (paraphrasing Nat'l 
Soc'y of Prof'l Eng'rs, 435 U.S. at 697; and United States v. U.S. 
Gypsum Co., 340 U.S. 76, 88-;89 (1950)).

[[Page 28594]]

    The public interest is not served merely by eliminating past 
anticompetitive practices; the remedy must eliminate the future 
recurrence of illegal conduct:

    [T]he end to be served is not punishment of past transgression, 
nor is it merely to end specific illegal practices. A public 
interest served by such civil suits is that they effectively pry 
open to competition a market that has been closed by 
defendants' illegal restraints. If [the] decree accomplishes 
less than that, the Government has won a lawsuit and lost a cause.

    Int'l Salt Co., 332 U.S. at 401 (emphasis added).

    A trial court upon a finding of... a monopoly has the duty to 
compel action... that will, so far as practicable, cure the ill 
effects of the illegal conduct, and assure the public freedom from 
its continuance ....
    Acts entirely proper when viewed alone may be prohibited. U.S. 
Gypsum Co., 340 U.S. at 90 (citations omitted); see also United Shoe 
Mach. Corp., 391 U.S. at 252 (relief should ``render impotent 
the monopoly''); Nat'l Soc'y of Prof'l Engn'rs, 435 U.S. at 697 
(``the District Court was empowered to fashion appropriate 
restraints on the Society's future activities to avoid a recurrence 
of the violation and eliminate its consequences'').
    In this case, the government has recognized the need to go 
beyond enjoining current violations to assure that Microsoft's 
violations do not recur. See Gov't D.Ct. Memo at 24 
(``Forbidding the continuance of the violation--;here, for 
example, the anticompetitive bundling of Internet Explorer with the 
Windows operating system--;is necessary but not sufficient to 
rectify the harm caused and threatened by Microsoft's illegal 
conduct.'').
    b. Restore Competition (Deny The Fruits Of Wrongdoing)
    As the government has acknowledged, ``[r]estoring 
competition is the `key to the whole question of an antitrust 
remedy.''' CIS at 24 (quoting E.I. du Pont de Nemours 
& Co., 366 U.S. at 697); see also U.S. Gypsum, 340 U.S. at 90 
(``The conspirators should, so far as practicable, be denied 
future benefits from their forbidden conduct.''); United States 
v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563,577 (1966) (``We start from the 
premise that adequate relief in a monopolization case should... 
deprive the defendants of any of the benefits of the illegal 
conduct, and break up or render impotent the monopoly power found to 
be in violation of the Act.''); CA at 103 (a remedies decree 
must ``deny to the defendant the fruits of its statutory 
violation'') (citations omitted). As the Supreme Court put it 
in a holding that is particularly cogent here:

    [A]n injunction against future violations is not adequate to 
protect the public interest. If all that was done was to forbid a 
repetition of the illegal conduct, those who had unlawfully built 
their empires could preserve them intact. They could retain the full 
dividends of their monopolistic practices and profit from the 
unlawful restraint of trade which they had inflicted on competitors. 
Such a course would make enforcement of the Act a futile thing 
unless, perchance, the United States moved in at the incipient 
stages of the unlawful project.

    Schine Chain Theaters, Inc., 334 U.S. at 128.
    2. The Law Requires Effective Measures To Accomplish These 
Results
    a. Relief Must Neutralize Monopoly Power At Its Source And 
Eliminate The Monopolist's Incentive To Exclude Competitors From The 
Market
    A decree must ``break up or render impotent the monopoly 
power found to be in violation of the Act.'' Grinnell Corp., 
384 U.S. at 577. It must ``leave the defendant without the 
ability to resume the actions which constituted the antitrust 
violations in the first place.'' AT&T, 552 F. Supp. at 150.
    b. Relief Must Anticipate New Forms Of Exclusion, Commensurate 
With The Evidence Of Microsoft's Incentive To Exclude And Its 
Willingness To Do So At The Expense Of Consumers And Its Own Product 
Quality
    Because an antitrust remedy, in order to be adequate, must 
neutralize the monopolist's power to resume the action constituting 
the adjudicated violation, any remedy ``must effectively 
foreclose the possibility that antitrust violations will occur or 
recur.'' Id. at 150. Again, the Supreme Court has given 
instruction that is directly relevant here:

    When the purpose to restrain trade appears from a clear 
violation of law, it is not necessary that all of the untraveled 
roads to that end be left open and that only the worn one be closed. 
The usual ways to the prohibited goal may be blocked against the 
proven transgressor and the burden put upon him to bring any proper 
claims for relief to the court's attention.

    Int'l Salt Co., 332 U.S. at 400. As the District Court has 
recognized, even practices not found to be unlawful should be 
prohibited where necessary to avoid recurrence of monopolization. 
AT&T, 552 F. Supp. at 150 n.80 (citing United States v. United 
Shoe Mach. Corp., 110 F. Supp. 295,346-;47 (D. Mass. 1953), 
aff'd, 347 U.S. 521 (1954)). Similarly, the court must impose 
additional restraints to allow development of new competition in the 
relevant market. Id. (citing Ford Motor Co., 405 U.S. at 575).
    Given the record in this case, the remedy must anticipate new 
forms of exclusion such that, in view of Microsoft's incentive to 
exclude and demonstrated willingness to do so, the company may not 
further restrain trade illegally and is prevented from repeating its 
past unlawful practices in new contexts.
    c. Relief Must Prevent Regulatory (Decree) Evasion
    Where the monopoly in question is as powerful and persistent as 
that maintained over the last decade by Microsoft, there is a real 
danger that the monopolist will evade the particular provisions of 
any consent decree that is entered. In order to cope with the threat 
of regulatory evasion, antitrust judgments must contain broad 
proscriptions of anticompetitive conduct that will, by their 
generality, cover new forms of exclusion. See, E.I. du Pont, 366, 
U.S. at 1254 (An ``injunction can hardly be detailed enough to 
cover in advance all the many fashions in which improper influence 
may manifest itself.''); AT&T, 552 F. Supp. at 167 
(approving consent decree ordering divestiture, preclusion from 
specific markets, and compulsory, royalty-free licensing) (``it 
is unlikely that, realistically, an injunction could be drafted that 
would be both sufficiently detailed to bar specific anticompetitive 
conduct yet sufficiently broad to prevent the various conceivable 
kinds of behavior that AT&T might employ in the future''); 
Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. 395 U.S. 100, 132 
(1969) (court may exercise its ``broad power to restrain acts 
which are of the same type or class as the unlawful acts which the 
court has found to be committed or whose commission in the future, 
unless enjoined, may fairly be anticipated from the defendant's 
conduct in the past''); CA at 103 (court must ``ensure 
that there remain no practices likely to result in monopolization in 
the future''). The ``broad power'' the Court has to 
fashion an effective remedy includes the authority to prohibit 
exploitation of monopoly power in any manner and to order provisions 
designed to create and foster new competition, including the 
disclosure of proprietary information, mandatory licensing, 
exclusive dealing bans and many other remedies. Gov't. D.Ct. Memo at 
26 (citing United States v. Crescent Amusement Co., 323 U.S. 173 
(1944); Hartford-Empire Co. v. United States, 323 U.S. 386 (1945); 
United States v. Glaxo Group Ltd., 410 U.S. 52 (1973); Int'l Salt 
Co., 332 U.S. 392; Ford Motor Co., 405 U.S. at 572).
    In order to prevent evasion of antitrust proscriptions put in 
place by a consent decree, courts routinely retain jurisdiction in 
order to modify decrees, resolve disputes, and ensure there is a 
forum for timely adjudicating whether defendants are in compliance. 
See, e.g., Int'l Salt Co., 332 U.S. at 401-;02; Otter Tail 
Power Co. v. United States, 410 U.S. 366, 381-;82 (1973); 
United Shoe Mach. Corp., 391 U.S. at 251-;52; AT&T, 552 F. 
Supp. at 215-;17 (ordering modification of proposed consent 
decree to include provisions relating to Court's continuing ability 
to enforce decree).
    d. Relief Must Be Of Sufficient Duration To ``Pry 
Open'' The Monopolized Market By Allowing Competitive Products 
To Take Root
    i. It Takes Years For Competitive Alternatives--;Web 
Portals, Servers And Middleware--;To Develop, Even Assuming Lack 
Of Obstruction
    The applications barrier to entry that Microsoft enjoys through 
its operating system monopoly will, as the District Court found (and 
the Court of Appeals agreed), make it extraordinarily difficult for 
a new operating system to attract enough developers and consumers to 
be a viable alternative to Windows in any reasonable time frame. 
D.Ct. at 30-;31; D.Ct. CL at 36; CA at 54-;56. 
The overwhelming majority of consumers will only use Windows because 
there are already a large variety of applications written for that 
operating system. Given that it is expensive to port applications 
from one operating system to another, software developers will 
generally write applications only for the operating system that is 
used by the dominant share of PC users.
    Software developers and ISPs are now forced, given the economics 
of the industry, to use Windows, an operating system that

[[Page 28595]]

they would not necessarily choose, but that is virtually the sole 
conduit available to deliver their product to the end-user. Given 
these circumstances, ``it remains to be seen whether server or 
middleware-based development will flourish at all.'' D.Ct. at 
32.
    In order to allow alternative operating systems to develop, the 
public interest demands a decree that will ``pry open to 
competition a market that [is] closed'' by the enormous 
applications barrier to entry and by Microsoft's continuous course 
of illegal conduct. See Int'l Salt Co., 332 U.S. at 401. Given the 
time necessary for a competitive operating system or middleware 
product to overcome the applications barrier to entry (if it is 
possible at all), any sustainable decree must assure consumers, 
programmers and potential competitors of a lengthy time frame in 
which to develop new products that can compete with Windows. Without 
an adequate time frame for competing products to take hold, 
consumers will be unwilling to scrap the investment in applications, 
training, and hardware that they have already made in Windows.
    ii. Software Developers And Other ``Investors'' Need 
Confidence That The Decree Will Provide Protection Long Enough To 
Give Their Investments A Fair Chance To Be Viable
    Without a decree that is broad enough to ensure that Microsoft 
does not continue to benefit from its past practices and erect new 
barriers to market entry, the very purpose of antitrust relief in 
monopolization cases will be thwarted. Without a strong and long-
lasting decree, Microsoft's entrenched dominance and the threat of 
further exclusionary conduct will preclude entrepreneurs and other 
innovators from improving products and services. As the government 
has acknowledged, ``an injunction which simply bars the precise 
illegal conduct proven at trial would leave the defendant with the 
full dividends of [its] monopolistic practices and profit from the 
unlawful restraints of trade which [it] has inflicted on 
competitors.'' Gov't D.Ct. Reply Memo at 10 (quoting Schine 
Chain Theaters, 334 U.S. at 128 (internal quotation marks omitted)).
    If the decree leaves any room for doubt whether Microsoft will 
retain its freedom and power to exclude competitors, then software 
developers will, in their economic self-interest, continue what they 
have been doing for years--;writing applications that operate 
solely on Microsoft's platform--;thereby perpetuating the very 
monopoly that this case has found to be illegal. Such a result 
violates the fundamental tenet that an antitrust remedy must 
effectively ``restore future freedom of trade.'' See U.S. 
Gypsum, 340 U.S. at 90 (reversing an injunction limited to sale of 
gypsum board in Eastern United States and directing entry of 
injunction covering all gypsum products throughout the country 
because the ``relief, to be effective, must go beyond the 
narrow limits of the violation''); see also Glaxo Group Ltd., 
410 U.S. at 64 (ordering compulsory patent licensing on appeal where 
necessary to assure ``the public freedom from... continuance of 
the illegal conduct'').
    Rather than being narrowly drawn, the remedy in this case must 
be broad, prophylactic, flexible and forward-looking in order to 
provide competition a safe harbor from Microsoft's exclusionary 
power.
    C. The Tunney Act Requires Courts To Reject Seriously Deficient 
Decrees
    Pursuant to the Tunney Act, 15 U.S.C. 16, in 
evaluating an antitrust settlement, a court may not ``rubber 
stamp'' a proposed consent decree, but must instead ``make 
an independent determination as to whether or not entry of a 
proposed consent decree [is] in the public interest.'' 
Microsoft Corp., 56 F.3d at 1458 (quoting S. Rep. No. 298, 93d 
Cong., 1st Sess. 5 (1973)); accord AT&T, 552 F. Supp. at 149 
& n.74.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\The provisions of the Tunney Act allow the Court to 
consider a wide variety of factors in determining whether a consent 
decree is in the public interest, including: (1) the competitive 
impact of such judgment, including termination of alleged 
violations, provisions of enforcement and modification, duration of 
relief sought, anticipated effects of alternative remedies actually 
considered, and any other considerations bearing upon the adequacy 
of such judgment; (2) the impact of entry of such judgment upon the 
public generally and individuals alleging specific injury from the 
violations set forth in the complaint including consideration of the 
public benefit, if any, to be derived from a determination of the 
issues at trial. 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(1)-;(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In determining whether the consent decree is in the public 
interest, the Court must begin by defining the public interest in 
accordance with the antitrust laws, AT&T, 552 F. Supp. at 149 
(citing S.Rep. No. 93-;298 at 3; H.R. Rep. No. 93-;1463 
11-;12), and ensure that the provisions of the decree will 
``preserve free and unfettered competition as the rule of 
trade.'' Id. (citing N. Pac. Ry. v. United States, 365 U.S. 1 
(1958)). The consent decree's provisions must ``break up or 
render impotent the monopoly power found to be in violation of the 
Act.'' Id. at 150 (quoting Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. at 577) and 
``must leave the defendant without the ability to resume the 
actions which constituted the antitrust violation in the first 
place,'' id. Not only must the decree remedy past violations, 
``it must also effectively foreclose the possibility that 
antitrust violations will occur or recur.'' Id.; see also id. 
at 151 (``[I]t does not follow that courts must unquestionably 
accept a proffered decree as long as it somehow, and however 
inadequately, deals with the antitrust and other public policy 
problems implicated in the lawsuit.'').
    In its first decision involving Microsoft, the Court of Appeals 
recognized that a more deferential review standard is appropriate 
under the Tunney Act in cases where there has been no trial and 
hence ``there are no findings that the defendant has actually 
engaged in illegal practices.'' Microsoft Corp., 56 F.3d at 
1460-;61. It follows, therefore, that where there are express 
findings based on a full trial record ``that the defendant has 
actually engaged in illegal practices,'' id., a more intensive 
Tunney Act review is required. Accord AT&T, 552 F. Supp. at 152. 
In the instant case, there have been both a lengthy trial on the 
merits and exhaustive findings of illegal monopoly maintenance by 
Microsoft--;findings that the Court of Appeals expressly 
affirmed. Thus, unlike in more routine Tunney Act proceedings 
involving settlements without adjudicated findings of liability, the 
proposed consent decree in this case is subject to a more searching 
standard of review by the trial court. See also U.S. Gypsum Co., 340 
U.S. at 89 (``[C]ourts should give weight to the fact of 
conviction as well as the circumstances under which the illegal acts 
occur. Acts in disregard of law call for repression by sterner 
measures than where the steps could reasonably have been thought 
permissible.'').
    The AT&T case provides strong support for applying a higher 
degree of scrutiny in this case than in the typical Tunney Act 
proceeding. In AT&T, while noting that ordinarily a degree of 
deference to the Department of Justice's view that a settlement is 
in the public interest is appropriate, the District Court held that 
such deference was not warranted where the court had heard 
``what probably amounts to well over ninety percent of the 
parties' evidence both quantitatively and qualitatively, as 
well as all of [the parties'] legal arguments.'' 552 F. Supp. 
at 152. The District Court thus concluded that it was ``in a 
far better position than are the courts in the usual consent decree 
cases to evaluate the specific details of the settlement.'' Id. 
The Court of Appeals, in its first Microsoft opinion, embraced this 
distinction and specifically contrasted the AT&T consent decree 
proceeding with the first Microsoft decree, which was presented 
before any evidence had been taken. See Microsoft Corp., 56 F.3d at 
1461.
    The circumstances now justify a searching and demanding review 
of whether the decree is in the public interest. The settlement here 
is not before the Court ``in the first instance,'' or even 
with ``ninety percent of the parties'' evidence'' 
presented (as in AT&T,) but rather after a full trial on the 
merits and multiple findings that Microsoft violated the Sherman 
Act. The District Court now has before it all of the trial evidence, 
as well as Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, affirmed by the 
Court of Appeals, regarding the relevant market and Microsoft's 
illegal, anticompetitive conduct. The Court may therefore make a 
fully informed and independent determination concerning whether the 
settlement is truly in the public interest.
    As in AT&T, close scrutiny of the settlement is also 
necessary because of its importance to the national economy. In 
refusing to narrow the scrutiny given the consent decree, the 
District Court in AT&T noted that given the ``potential 
impact of the proposed decree on a vast and crucial sector of the 
economy and on such general public interest as the cost and 
availability of local telephone service, the technological 
development of a vital part of the national economy, national 
defense, and foreign trade, the Court would be derelict in its duty 
if it adopted a narrow approach to its public interest review 
responsibilities.'' AT&T, 552 F. Supp. at 152.
    The proposed settlement here is of no less importance. This 
settlement has broad ramifications for the national economy, 
especially in technology development, and impacts millions of 
American consumers--;ramifications with little precedent in the

[[Page 28596]]

history of antitrust jurisprudence. In such circumstances, the 
Court's careful, independent review is essential to ensure the 
decree serves the public interest.
    Finally, the proposed settlement also requires heightened 
scrutiny because half of the States that joined in prosecuting the 
case do not agree that the settlement would protect the interests of 
their citizens. The government is now expressing views substantially 
inconsistent with its expressed positions at earlier stages of the 
case. Where elected representatives of the public are sharply 
divided on whether the settlement actually serves the public 
interest, any questions concerning whether the settlement is fair to 
the public must be subject to exacting scrutiny. ``None of this 
means, of course, that the Court would be justified in simply 
substituting its views for those of the parties. But it does mean 
that the decree [should] receive closer scrutiny than that which 
might be appropriate to a decree proposed in a more routine 
antitrust case.'' AT&T, 522 F. Supp. at 153.
    THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT FAILS IN EVERY MATERIAL RESPECT TO 
ACHIEVE THE OBJECTIVES OF RELIEF REQUIRED BY THIS CASE AND 
AFFIRMATIVELY PROVIDES A ``GREEN LIGHT'' AND AN INCENTIVE 
TO ENGAGE IN EXCLUSIONARY CONDUCT
    A. The Government Has Abandoned Its Prior Effort To Use 
Injunctive Relief To ``Pry Open'' The Monopolized Market, 
Conceding That Its Purpose Is Now Merely To Protect 
``Nascent'' Threats To The Windows Monopoly
    The Court of Appeals affirmed findings that Microsoft 
extinguished all tangible threats to its operating systems monopoly. 
CA at 79; D.Ct. at 68-;77. The findings also 
support the conclusion that if Microsoft had pursued competition on 
the merits rather than anticompetitive conduct, significant erosion 
of its monopoly would have occurred. See generally CA at 
58-;79. Certainly, that is what Microsoft's CEO believed when 
he envisioned the Windows operating system being 
``commoditized'' by Netscape. D.Ct. at 72. The 
proposed settlement does nothing to deprive Microsoft of either the 
``fruits'' or the source of its successful strategy of 
extinguishing competition, nor does it restore to consumers the 
benefits of the choices that they would have had if Microsoft's 
illegal conduct had never occurred.
    At this stage of the proceedings, the government states that its 
goal is merely to ``restore the competitive threat that 
middleware products posed prior to Microsoft's unlawful 
undertakings.'' CIS at 3. These were, as the government admits, 
merely ``nascent threats,'' id. at 24, 25, not the fully-
developed alternatives that would have existed today but for 
Microsoft's conduct. The competitive threats to the Microsoft 
monopoly were stillborn, not as a result of fair competition but, as 
the government acknowledges, because of Microsoft's predation:

    Through its actions against Navigator and Java, Microsoft 
retarded, and perhaps extinguished altogether, the process by which 
these two middleware technologies could have facilitated the 
introduction of competition into the market for Intel-compatible 
personal computer operating systems.

    CIS at 16-;17. Although the CIS acknowledges that merely 
prohibiting future instances of Microsoft's past exclusionary, 
monopolistic conduct is not sufficient to restore competition, in 
reality that is all the proposed settlement attempts to do, and even 
those minimal efforts are unavailing.
    indeed, in the earlier remedy proceedings, the government 
characterized Microsoft's view of appropriate relief (which the 
government has now largely adopted) as a ``crabbed view of 
antitrust remedies:''

    [E]specially in an industry like the software industry, which as 
Microsoft has repeatedly emphasized is rapidly changing, a remedy 
limited to barring repetition of the precise acts in the precise 
contexts that were at issue in the trial could not possibly serve 
the required purposes of preventing recurrence of the violations and 
restoring competition.
    Gov't D.Ct. Reply Memo at 49. It is therefore ironic that the 
government now embraces in the proposed settlement many of the same 
substantive decree provisions it earlier dismissed as woefully 
inadequate.
    Presaging the current dispute over remedies, the government 
stated in a pleading before the District Court almost two years ago:

    In crafting an effective Sherman Act remedy, a court must use 
the record of a backward-looking trial to fashion forward-looking 
relief. Looking forward, the Court must anticipate that Microsoft, 
unless restrained by appropriate equitable relief, likely will 
continue to perpetuate its monopoly by the same anticompetitive 
methods revealed at trial, although directed at whatever new 
competitive threat arises. Neither the Netscape browser nor Java 
continues to have the prospect of lowering the applications barrier 
to entry, and it is not certain where future threats to Microsoft's 
operating system will arise.

    Gov't D.Ct. Memo at 27-;28. The government then went on to 
describe as potential middleware or platform threats to Microsoft's 
operating system monopoly such products and technologies as 
Microsoft's own Office suite; applications such as voice recognition 
software, media streaming technology and email programs; server 
operating systems (and the need for interoperability between PCs and 
servers); and non-PC devices such as PDAs and hand-held computers. 
See id. at 28-;29.
    A settlement such as this one, which limits itself to protecting 
the next generation of emerging threats instead of ``prying 
open'' the monopolized market (thereby effectively blessing the 
extinction of the first generation and the preservation of 
Microsoft's monopoly), cannot claim to serve even this minimal goal 
without anticipating and prohibiting, with both specificity and 
generality, the many ways in which Microsoft can thwart new forms of 
competition from novel or different technologies, such as those 
listed by the government. In this regard, it is noteworthy that the 
Court of Appeals, like the District Court, found that Microsoft's 
commingling of its browser and operating system codes constituted 
illegal monopoly maintenance. CA at 64-;67. Yet the settlement 
would allow such conduct to continue. And as long as such 
commingling is allowed, Microsoft has the power to prevent the next 
generation of computing on web and network servers, nascent or 
otherwise, from overcoming its operating system monopoly. Thus, the 
decree does not even bar ``repetition of the precise acts in 
the precise contexts that were at issue in the trial.'' Gov't 
D.Ct. Reply Memo at 49.
    B. The Proposed Settlement Is Riddled With Loopholes That Invite 
Evasion, Does Not Anticipate And Prohibit New Forms Of Exclusionary 
Conduct To Protect The Windows Monopoly, And Discourages The 
Development Of Competition To Windows
    1. The Proposed Settlement Provisions To Protect Middleware Do 
Not Adequately Address Microsoft's Past Illegal Conduct, Much Less 
Prevent Its Recurrence In The Future
    One of the principal threats to the dominance of Microsoft's 
operating system monopoly was middleware, which refers to 
``software products that expose their own APIs.'' CA at 
53; D.Ct. 28, 68. Since middleware exposes APIs for 
which software developers can write programs, it can provide a less 
time-consuming and cheaper means of writing applications that can 
run on various operating systems. Id. Anything that reduces the need 
to adapt, or ``port,'' an application to competing 
operating systems threatens to overcome Microsoft's monopoly in the 
PC operating systems market by eliminating the applications barrier 
to entry. CA at 54-;56; D.Ct. at 68-;78.
    Unfortunately, the provisions that address middleware are so 
limited and rife with exceptions as to be virtually meaningless. 
Sections III.C and III.H of the proposed settlement are inadequate 
in at least the following respects: (a) the definitions of key terms 
invite easy evasion and make Microsoft's compliance virtually 
discretionary; (b) while the settlement is fairly specific in 
limiting Microsoft's ability to restrict OEMs from promoting 
competing software, it is silent on a crucial 
tactic--;technological binding\4\--;that Microsoft 
was proven to have used to the same exclusionary ends; and (c) the 
settlement undermines its own purported goals by including 
exceptions to each prohibition that largely negate the relief 
ordered. In its narrowness, the settlement also ignores new 
products, the potential for future innovation, and novel methods by 
which similar anticompetitive results may be achieved. As such, the 
decree fails either to remedy past effects or prevent future 
anticompetitive acts from occurring.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\The terms ``binding'' or ``commingling 
of code'' refer to including software or a link to web-based 
software in an operating system product in such a way that either an 
OEM or end-user cannot readily remove or uninstall the code without 
degrading the performance or impairing the functionality of the 
operating system. ``Bundling'' refers to the sale or 
marketing of different software products in a single package, but 
without commingling of their codes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    a. The Definitions In The Decree Effectively Leave Compliance At 
Microsoft's Discretion

[[Page 28597]]

    i. The Definitions Of ``Microsoft Middleware'' And 
``Microsoft Middleware Product'' Encourage Microsoft To 
Continue Binding Middleware To Its Monopoly Windows Operating System
    The definition of ``Microsoft Middleware'' is of 
crucial importance because, if a program constitutes 
``Microsoft Middleware,'' Microsoft is then subject to 
requirements that it disclose the programming interfaces and 
communications protocols by which the middleware interoperates with 
the Windows operating system. The definition also triggers 
Microsoft's obligation to allow OEMs to re-configure the PC desktop 
to give purportedly equal access to competing middleware. See CIS at 
17-;18; RPFJ III.C, III.D, III.E. As shown 
below, these disclosures and obligations are not adequate to 
accomplish their avowed purpose. The government's stated goal is to 
ensure the viability of the OEM distribution channel for competing 
middleware products and the ability of those products to achieve 
``seamless interoperability'' with the Windows operating 
system. CIS at 38.
    The proposed settlement defines ``Microsoft 
Middleware'' as software code that: (1) is distributed 
separately from the Windows Operating System Product; (2) is 
trademarked; (3) provides functionality similar to a Microsoft 
Middleware Product; and (4) has the code necessary to be considered 
a self-contained product. See RPFJ VI.J. Because each 
element of this definition is too narrow or too easily evaded by 
Microsoft, the obligations that are triggered by the definition are 
largely illusory.
    The first part of this definition bears directly upon 
Microsoft's practice of initially distributing a middleware product 
separately, then bundling it for sale with Windows, and finally 
binding it to the operating system. See D.Ct. at 
155-;74 (discussing employment of these tactics 
with IE). Binding, or commingling of source code was held by the 
Court of Appeals to be illegal conduct used by Microsoft to 
eliminate the browser threat. See CA at 64-;67; D.Ct. at 
159, 170-;74. It is unnecessary technically and has 
no procompetitive justification. Id.
    The practical effect of the settlement's definition, however, is 
to allow Microsoft to achieve the same anticompetitive results 
merely by omitting the first of the three steps mentioned above. 
Simply by bundling middleware applications with the operating system 
from the outset (so that they would not be ``distributed 
separately''), Microsoft may render any provision regulating 
its use of ``Middleware'' a nullity. Because the 
settlement contains no limitations on bundling or commingling of 
Microsoft middleware with the monopoly operating system, the 
definition actually encourages Microsoft to engage in 
anticompetitive practices--;i.e., commingling of code--;in 
order to avoid application of the decree.
    Second, the definition of ``Microsoft Middleware'' 
requires that the product must be trademarked. Simply by not seeking 
a trademark, Microsoft can ensure that its middleware will not be 
covered by the settlement's provisions.\5\ This means that Microsoft 
can distribute any product that may have other intellectual property 
protections, such as copyright or patent protection, but that is not 
trademarked, without the product being considered 
``Middleware.'' Of course, if Microsoft chooses to bind a 
product to the operating system and not distribute it separately, 
there would be no need to trademark the product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\Even the settlement's definition of 
``trademark'' is so broad as to further limit the scope of 
the decree: ``Trademarked'' means distributed in commerce 
and identified as distributed by a name other than Microsoft(r) or 
Windows(r) that Microsoft has claimed as a trademark or service mark 
by (i) marking the name with trademark notices, such as ?? or TM, in 
connection with a product distributed in the United States; (ii) 
filing an application for trademark protection for the name in the 
United States Patent and Trademark Office; or (iii) asserting the 
name as a trademark in the United States in a demand letter or 
lawsuit. Any product distributed under descriptive or generic terms 
or a name comprised of the Microsoft(r) or Windows(r) trademarks 
together with descriptive or generic terms shall not be Trademarked 
as that term is used in this Final Judgment. Microsoft hereby 
disclaims any trademark rights in such descriptive or generic terms 
apart from the Microsoft(r) or Windows(r) trademarks, and hereby 
abandons any such rights that it may acquire in the future.'' 
RPFJ VI.T. Thus, Microsoft may release a new middleware 
product entitled WindowsTM Telephone, for example, and because the 
name is descriptive rather than trademarked, it would not be 
considered ``Microsoft Middleware'' under the terms of the 
decree.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The third requirement, which refers to the functionality of a 
``Microsoft Middleware Product,'' further limits the scope 
of the ``Microsoft Middleware'' definition. This is 
because the definition of ``Microsoft Middleware Product'' 
lists by name several products traditionally considered middleware, 
including Internet Explorer, Microsoft's Java Virtual Machine, 
Windows Media Player, Windows Messenger, Outlook Express, and their 
successors in the Windows operating system. See RPFJ 
VI.K. But limiting the definition of Microsoft 
``Middleware'' only to those products which in the past 
were distributed as middleware fails to account for future 
development of new products. In addition, the definition omits 
important existing products, such as Microsoft Office\6\6 and 
Internet telephony products, that perform functions analogous to the 
listed ``middleware'' products.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\Significantly, by omitting Microsoft Office from the 
list of middleware products, the government has eliminated from the 
proposed settlement a middleware product that provides Microsoft 
with a de facto monopoly in the middleware market. As of March 1997, 
Office's market share had reached 90%, a figure that has likely 
grown since that point. See Jesse Berst, Office Suites for Free 
ZDNet AnchorDesk (March 7, 1997), at http://www.zdnet.com/
anchordesk/story/story--;743.html; see also, Benjamin Woodhead, 
Microsoft's Australian Monopoly? Let the U.S. Handle It, iTNews 
(Nov. 17, 1999), at http://www.itnews,com.au/story.cfm?ID=507 
(referring to the lack of recent statistics on Office Suite's market 
share, ``We don't bother to measure that market anymore because 
Lotus and Corel have been squeezed out of it ... No one will pay for 
that sort of research because everyone knows what the answer 
is.'').
    \7\Describing the functionality of a product in terms of 
the categories of applications, rather than the operation of the 
product, also limits the effectiveness of section III.H of the 
proposed settlement, which relies heavily upon the definition of 
``Microsoft Middleware Product'' to set the parameters of 
non-Microsoft middleware access to the OEM distribution channel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The fourth requirement is that the code must be ``self-
contained.'' This too encourages commingling of Microsoft 
middleware with the operating system, because it allows Microsoft to 
create cross-dependent products solely to avoid complying with the 
provisions applicable to ``Middleware.'' If Microsoft is 
allowed to commingle the code for the products in such a way as to 
create cross-dependencies between the operating system and 
middleware (as it did illegally for IE), it can avoid compliance 
with many of the substantive provisions in the decree.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\An example of cross-dependency is the link between IE 
and Microsoft Word in the Windows Operating System Product. Even if 
an end-user has selected Navigator as her default browser, IE may 
automatically launch if the user clicks on a URL, (i.e., an Internet 
address) that is contained in a Word document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the CIS, the government explains that the definitions of 
``Microsoft Middleware'' and ``Microsoft Middleware 
Product'' include the ``functionality'' of a number 
of existing Microsoft middleware products, including IE, Windows 
Media Player, and Outlook Express. See C1S at 17-;20. What is 
not mentioned, however, is that the government previously advocated 
a definition of middleware that was truly based on the function of 
middleware and, as such, there was no need to distinguish between 
``Microsoft Middleware'' and ``Non- Microsoft 
Middleware.'' See Final Judgment 7(q).\9\ Nor does 
the CIS discuss the fact that in the event that a particular item of 
software code fails to meet any one of the four definitional 
requirements in the settlement, it will not be regulated at all by 
sections III.C, III.D, and III.E of the decree. This is significant, 
because the definition as it stands now neither comports with the 
traditional definitions of middleware, nor with the way the courts 
in this case have used the term. See, e.g., CA at 53.
    ii. The Definition Of ``Non-Microsoft Middleware 
Product'' Is Too Narrow To Protect The Ability Of Products And 
Competitors To Gain Equal Access To The OEM Distribution Channel

[[Page 28598]]

    From the outset, the government has supported injunctive relief 
designed both to give OEMs control over how to configure the PCs 
they sell and to provide end-users with the ability to remove 
Microsoft middleware from their computers. See Gov't D.Ct. Reply 
Memo at 45-;47, 60-;64. Sections III.C and III.H rely on 
the definition of ``Non-Microsoft Middleware'' to identify 
the competing software products that Microsoft must allow OEMs to 
include on the Windows desktop if they so choose and to distribute 
to consumers. The intention was to open the OEM channel to 
distribution of competing software and thereby remove one of the 
barriers Microsoft had erected to protect its Windows monopoly. 
Indeed, the definition of ``Non-Microsoft Middleware 
Product'' encompasses those technologies that Microsoft 
``extinguished'' (such as the Netscape browser) as it 
defines the products entitled to protection. Before a new program 
receives this protection, however, the settlement's definition of 
``Non-Microsoft Middleware Product'' requires that at 
least one million copies of the product must have been distributed 
in the previous year. RPFJ VI.N. This onerous 
requirement defeats the government's express purpose of giving new 
products an adequate chance at the OEM distribution channel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\The Final Judgment contained the following definition 
for Middleware, which it applied to both Microsoft and Non-Microsoft 
Middleware: ``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) 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, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CIS asserts that this level of distribution is 
``minimal'' and ``necessary'' so that 
Microsoft's affirmative obligations will not be triggered by 
``minor'' or ``non-existent'' products. CIS at 
20-;21. There is no support in the record, however, or in 
antitrust law generally for the notion that only large competitors 
deserve protection. ``Minor'' new products, i.e., the 
nascent competition that the CIS claims will be restored, deserve 
protection no less than older, more significant ones. One thing that 
the history of the software industry proves is that some of the most 
popular products and services were created by the ingenuity of small 
firms working alone without means of distributing their products. 
Most, even with the OEM distribution channel opened to them, failed 
to distribute one million copies the first year on the market, and 
the CIS cites no evidentiary support for setting the distribution 
trigger at the extraordinary level of one million copies.
    Through this definition, the settlement creates a major obstacle 
to new products or competitors being able to obtain wide release and 
distribution of innovative products. Moreover, it has the additional 
pernicious effect of allowing Microsoft ample time to develop and 
promote or announce a preemptive offering before the non-Microsoft 
product reaches the one million distribution mark. Final Judgment 
7(q).
    iii. The Definition Of ``Windows Operating System 
Product'' Grants Microsoft Unfettered Discretion To Decide What 
Is And What Is Not Part Of Its Operating System
    The settlement defines ``Windows Operating System 
Product'' as a closed universe of past operating system 
products that is comprised of the software code of Microsoft's 
currently-distributed versions of its PC operating system, including 
Windows 2000 Professional and Windows XP Home and Professional, and 
their successors. RPFJ VI.U. The definition also leaves 
in Microsoft's ``sole discretion'' the determination of 
what software code constitutes future versions of the Windows 
Operating System Product. Id. The CIS fails to explain why the 
definition in the proposed settlement does not establish an 
objective standard, but instead entrusts such determinations to 
Microsoft's ``sole discretion.'' Additionally, rather than 
explaining how the definition impacts upon the objectives of the 
decree and why it was drafted in this way, the CIS merely states 
that the definition leaves ``packaging'' (read: bundling 
or binding) decisions in Microsoft's hands. CIS at 23-;24.
    The government fails to reconcile this definition with the Court 
of Appeals' finding that Microsoft utilized commingling of 
code to maintain its monopoly. Nor does it explain how the 
definition meets the government's avowed goal that the settlement 
put an end to Microsoft's past monopolistic conduct. The definition 
gives Microsoft incentives to integrate middleware into its 
operating system to avoid having middleware products classified as 
such.
    Of particular importance for the future, the definition fails to 
take into account that Microsoft manufactures non-PC and non-desktop 
PC operating systems, such as an operating system for personal 
digital assistants (PDAs) and other handheld devices. These systems 
include Windows CE 3.0, Windows NT ?? Embedded 4.0, Windows CE for 
Automotive, Windows 2000 with the Server Appliance Kit, Windows for 
Smart Cards, Windows CE .NET and Windows XP Embedded. Any settlement 
that serves the public interest must cover new products that 
Microsoft can and will use to protect its PC operating system 
monopoly. There is an extensive set of devices which are the target 
for these systems beyond PDAs and pocket PCs, including smart 
phones, smart TVs, gaming devices, web pads, Internet appliances, 
media appliances, digital cameras, printers, scanners, retail point 
of sale devices, Windows based thin-client terminals, set-top boxes, 
residential gateways, automobile computing systems, home servers, 
industrial control devices and smart cards. In short, the proposed 
settlement's definition ignores both past and future operating 
system products. A proper definition of ``Windows Operating 
System Product'' would both recognize Microsoft's past product 
releases and include all Microsoft operating systems for any 
hardware device, including PCs, servers and handheld computing 
devices.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\The definitions of ``Windows Operating System 
Product'' and ``Personal Computer,'' read together, 
also create an ambiguity that places in doubt whether future 
versions of Microsoft's operating system will even qualify as a 
``Windows Operating System Product'' under the proposed 
settlement. Windows XP is Microsoft's first PC operating system 
designed for shared or multiple person use. Microsoft has promoted 
XP's ability to facilitate home networks where many people can share 
devices and Internet connections.
    See Experience the Connected Home: Share One or Many Computers 
(May 9, 2001), at http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/
evaluation/experiences/connectedhome.asp. Because Windows Operating 
System Product is defined as software ``distributed 
commercially by Microsoft for use with Personal Computers,'' 
RPFJ VI.U, and the definition of ``Personal 
Computer'' means ``any computer configured so that its 
primary purpose is for use by one person at a time,'' RPFJ 
VI.Q, if XP or its successors are distributed primarily 
for multiple users or employed for construction of mini-networks or 
servers, successor products could fail to meet the definitional 
requirements to be covered under the decree. See RPFJ 
VI.Q (expressly excluding servers and other computing 
devices from the definition of Personal Computer).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. The Settlement Fails To Prohibit Tactics Used By Microsoft To 
Foreclose OEM Distribution Of Competing Products And Allows That 
Unlawful Behavior To Continue
    The proposed settlement effectively endorses, through its 
silence, tactics previously employed by Microsoft to prevent OEMs 
from becoming an effective distribution channel for competing 
middleware products. Among the deficiencies in section III.C of the 
settlement are: (i) its failure to prevent Microsoft from binding 
middleware to its operating system; (ii) its failure to require 
Microsoft to set meaningful price differentials between ``fully 
loaded'' and ``stripped down'' (without Microsoft 
Middleware) versions of the Windows operating system that could 
``pry open the market'' for competing bundles of software 
and middleware offered by OEMs and third-party customizers; and 
(iii) the inclusion of limitations and loopholes that undermine the 
purpose of the decree provisions.
    i. A Prohibition Against Commingling Of Code Is Necessary To 
Prevent Microsoft From Continuing To Exclude Competition That 
Threatens The Windows Monopoly
    The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's findings that 
Microsoft's commingling of the code for IE with the code for Windows 
and its refusal to allow end-users to remove the IE browser from the 
Windows desktop constituted exclusionary acts in violation of 
Section 2. See CA at 66-;67. Binding the IE middleware product 
to the Windows operating system injured both Netscape and consumers 
by degrading the ability of Netscape to effectively interoperate 
with Windows, thus reducing consumer options in browser choice, and 
by ensuring that deletion of files containing browser-specific 
functions would also delete vital operating system routines, thus 
crippling Windows. CA at 65-;66 (citing D.Ct. at 164). 
Microsoft's anticompetitive purpose so dominated its business 
decisions that it degraded its own products by binding, since 
commingling of code decreased the security and reliability of 
Windows. CA at 62, 65; D.Ct. 174.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\``Binding harmed consumers who did not want 
Internet Explorer, by causing `performance degradation, 
increased risks of incompatibilities, and the introduction of 
bugs.''' Felton Decl. 84 (citing D.Ct. at 173).

    In response to these acts, the government initially advocated a 
prohibition against the binding of software to the operating system, 
in order to prevent Microsoft from repeating the illegal conduct 
that the Court found it undertook with respect to the browser. See, 
e.g., Findings 164, 166-;74, 176; see also Zenith, 
395 U.S. at 132 (a remedy should prevent defendant from repeating 
the ``same

[[Page 28599]]

type or class'' of unlawful conduct). Forced bundling injures 
consumers directly and injures competition by increasing the costs 
rival software vendors must incur to get their products distributed 
effectively. It is an especially potent competitive weapon for 
Microsoft because Microsoft is able to target competing middleware 
threats--;like the browser--;by bundling its own version 
with its operating system monopoly, thereby protecting that 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
monopoly.

    Gov't D.Ct. Reply Memo at 60-;61 (emphasis added). Indeed, 
the government's chosen remedy on this issue in the Final Judgment 
not only required abolition of commingling, but required the price 
of Windows to be reduced in proportion to the amount of unbundled 
programming that was removed by an OEM:

    g. Restriction on Binding Middleware Products to 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 any Middleware Product to a Windows 
Operating System unless:

    Microsoft also offers an otherwise identical version of that 
Operating System Product in which all means of End-User Access to 
that Middleware Product 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; and ii. when an OEM removes End-User 
Access to a 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. See Final Judgment 3(g). 
In the CIS, the government acknowledges that the Court of Appeals 
found that Microsoft unlawfully ``integrated its web browser 
into Windows in a non-removable way while excluding rivals,'' 
CIS at 3, but then makes no further mention of the commingling 
issue.
    Notwithstanding the government's stated conviction (backed by 
the Court of Appeals'' holding) that binding violates Section 
2, the proposed settlement gives a green light to Microsoft's 
continuing to bind middleware products to its operating system. This 
gap in the settlement's coverage, coupled with the definitions of 
Microsoft Middleware and Microsoft Middleware Product, not only 
allows Microsoft to continue its past anticompetitive conduct, but 
also provides Microsoft with an incentive to use the same techniques 
to extend its monopoly into other areas.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\In addition to the settlement's failure to prohibit 
commingling of code, the settlement also condones Microsoft's 
bundling of products with its operating system. Section III.C 
presents OEMs with a laundry list of options they may adopt in 
installing, displaying, and distributing Non-Microsoft Middleware, 
but nothing in the proposed settlement prevents Microsoft from 
forcing OEMs to accept additional products as part of the Windows 
Operating System Product that are included with the operating 
system. As a result, under the proposed settlement, OEMs can be 
forced to accept a complete package of Microsoft products with each 
license of the Windows operating system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The settlement's failure in this respect is underscored by 
Microsoft's recent introduction of Windows XP, which plainly 
demonstrates its intent to continue defending the Windows monopoly 
by binding even more applications and services to its new operating 
systems, notwithstanding the determination that doing so is illegal. 
Windows XP has more Microsoft middleware products and services bound 
to or included with the operating system than any previous version 
of Windows. One of the services integrated into XP is Passport, a 
web authentication, security and credit card verification service 
that allows consumers, using a single log-in, to shop on thousands 
(and ultimately, Microsoft hopes, millions) of websites that accept 
Passport. Because Microsoft's past unlawful conduct allowed it to 
maintain a PC operating system monopoly and acquire a de facto 
monopoly in the browser market (IE is used to access the Internet by 
approximately 91% of consumers),\13\ Microsoft is in a uniquely 
advantaged position to encourage subscription to Passport whenever a 
user connects to the Internet from her XP desktop. This is so 
because XP comes fully loaded with prominently displayed prompts for 
Passport throughout the program, starting with the initial boot 
sequence and continuing each time the user logs on to her computer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\Don Clark, AOL Sues Microsoft Over Netscape in Case 
That Could Seek Billions, Wall Street Journal, Jan. 23, 2002, at B4 
(citing Browser Market Shares StatMarket (2002), at 
www.websidestory.com).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As Microsoft succeeds in generating Passport subscriptions 
through its monopoly distribution of Windows XP, retailers with web 
portals selling products and services on the Internet will be forced 
to accept Passport as their authentication system. In this way, 
Microsoft will be able to nullify threats to the Windows monopoly by 
precluding other web-based alternatives to Passport. Furthermore, by 
defending its PC monopoly with Passport, Microsoft will also insert 
itself on both sides of a web transaction. Because of the 
``network effect,'' the final outcome--;absent strong 
and effective injunctive relief--;is likely to be that most e-
commerce will be conducted with either the consumer or vendor, or 
both, paying a fee to Microsoft for the use of Passport.
    To the extent Passport gains a foothold as an authentication 
gateway to Internet commerce, this will erect a new barrier to entry 
for competing operating systems. Consumers will be reluctant to 
switch to a non-Windows PC operating system, because the personal 
information stored on Passport is readable only by Microsoft web 
servers, which in turn can be designed to interact most effectively 
with the Windows operating system and its embedded middleware, such 
as IE. At the same time, by erecting a fence (Passport) between PC 
users and the Internet generally, Microsoft will make it far less 
likely that a competing middleware platform, such as Netscape's 
Navigator, will displace user dependence on Windows, because without 
Passport, Navigator may end up being of little utility for e-
commerce.
    Nothing in the proposed settlement would prevent this chilling 
repetition of Microsoft's monopolizing conduct. By failing to 
adequately address the old tactics used (binding middleware to the 
operating system) and limiting the scope of the remedy in a manner 
which excludes new products and services, the proposed settlement 
fails in a critical way to end Microsoft's monopolizing conduct, let 
alone to deny Microsoft the fruits of its PC monopoly.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\It is noteworthy that the binding of applications is 
not limited to browsers and internet-related services, but also 
includes common applications such as word processing. For example, 
Microsoft has used its operating system monopoly to motivate 
consumers to use Microsoft Word instead of Corel's Word Perfect. 
Regardless of the quality or perceived attributes of Word Perfect 
versus Word, many businesses and individual consumers use Word 
simply to avoid incurring the additional trouble and expense of 
licensing a second word processing application when the PC operating 
system already comes equipped with such a function.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ii. The Proposed Settlement Omits Any Requirement That Microsoft 
Offer A Stripped-Down Version Of Windows At A Price That Reflects 
The Value Of The Removed Middleware Products
    As the Court of Appeals held, there is an economic disincentive 
for OEMs to offer, install and service a second middleware product 
such as a browser. CA at 66. However, nothing in the proposed 
settlement provides OEMs with an economic incentive to become a 
viable and effective means of distribution for alternative 
middleware products. Only by requiring Microsoft to provide OEMs 
with an economically-viable ``stripped-down'' version of 
Windows--;including the ability to completely remove Microsoft 
middleware from the operating system, see Final Judgment 
3(g)(i)--;will OEMs ever have an incentive to offer 
users products containing Non-Microsoft middleware alternatives.
    Even if Microsoft were required to provide OEMs with an 
unbundled operating system, it would only be possible for OEMs to 
offer consumers a choice of an alternative middleware/software 
package for the PC if Microsoft's price to the OEM were reduced to 
reflect the lower value of a software package that does not include 
Microsoft middleware that the OEM wishes to replace with competing 
products. Put another way, a market for alternative middleware 
configurations will only arise if such alternatives can be priced 
competitively with the ``fully loaded'' version of 
Windows. If the cost of alternative middleware bundles is always 
higher than that of the Microsoft Windows bundle, the market for 
non-Microsoft middleware will be limited or nonexistent.
    OEMs must have more than the Hobson's choice of either buying 
Windows XP fully bundled at $200, for example, or paying $199 for a 
stripped down version of Windows and then incurring the additional 
capital and labor costs of replacing a Microsoft middleware product 
with a competing

[[Page 28600]]

product bought at an additional, separate cost.
    Consequently, any remedial proposal that seeks to open the OEM 
distribution channel to competing middleware must address the 
pricing of the Windows operating system. The Final Judgment 
recognized the need for such a pricing mechanism. It required that 
the price of versions of Windows from which Microsoft middleware 
functions had been disabled or removed be reduced in proportion to 
the relative amounts of computer code bytes found in the operating 
system and middleware products in question. See Final Judgment 
3(g)(ii). Alternative formulations based on the 
relative product development costs are also available. See 
Litigating States' 1.
    Connected to the pricing issue is the failure of the proposed 
settlement to allow any party that is not an OEM 
(III.C) or end-user (III.H) to alter the 
configuration of the Windows platform. This omission has the effect 
of preventing third parties, who might fill a niche as customizers, 
to directly offer OEMs or end-users specific software/middleware 
packages that could be added to a stripped-down Windows operating 
system. For example, it is likely that absent Microsoft's illegal 
binding of its middleware to the Windows operating system, an 
industry of independent bundlers specializing in the sale of 
customized software packages would have developed. Using the 
operating system as a platform, these vendors could create 
customized software/middleware packages based on the need of 
particular consumer market segments, such as stock market buffs, 
antiques dealers or mathematicians.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\The proposed settlement contains one exception to its 
blanket prohibition on third party alterations: it would permit a 
Non-Microsoft Middleware producer to designate that its product be 
invoked automatically in place of a Microsoft Middleware Product. 
However, the mechanism by which the producer may accomplish this is 
at Microsoft's discretion, and Microsoft may require confirmation 
from the end-user that he or she would like to accept this option. 
See RPFJ III.H.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As it stands now, the proposed settlement creates no incentive 
for OEMs to pursue any of the objectives of section III.C. Yet, if 
the OEM distribution channel is not reopened, the decree will have 
no chance to succeed in its most important goal--;to restore 
competition in the monopolized market--;as no ISV will have 
equal access to consumers.
    iii. The Provisions In The Proposed Settlement That Purport To 
Foster OEM Flexibility In Product Configuration And Middleware 
Choices Contain Fatal Ambiguities And Loopholes
    Although the government originally supported straightforward 
remedy provisions governing OEM flexibility as to what products 
could be offered with a PC operating system, it now retreats to 
complicated provisions whose limiting language undercuts the 
purported relief. Compare Final Judgment 3(a)(iii) with 
RPFJ III.C. When the government initially proposed 
provisions that would allow OEMs to reconfigure the products they 
offered to meet consumer demand free from Microsoft's restrictions, 
it stated:

    Microsoft ... refused to permit OEMs to remove the Internet 
Explorer icon, even when their customers wanted them to do so. This 
provision of the Final Judgment thus prohibits Microsoft from 
preventing OEMs from undertaking competitively valuable alterations 
to the first screen, bootup sequence, and icon display and will help 
the OEM channel for distribution of non-Microsoft software, thereby 
giving consumers greater choices not only in how their computers 
look, but in what innovative software OEMs can offer them (Shapiro 
pp. 17-;20, 24).

    Gov't D.Ct. Memo at 39. In response to Microsoft's objections, 
the government reiterated that the purpose of the provisions was to 
prevent Microsoft from restricting OEMs'

ability to customize their PCs in certain ways to promote non-
Microsoft software. [It] will simply enable them to configure their 
systems so that non- Microsoft software can launch automatically, 
OEMs can offer their own internet access provider or other start-up 
sequence, and non- Microsoft Middleware can be made the default.

Gov't D.Ct. Reply Memo at 45-;46.
    Notwithstanding the logic of the government's past proposals, 
the proposed settlement replaces clarity with ambiguity and 
loopholes. Section III.C.1 states that ``Microsoft may restrict 
an OEM from displaying icons, shortcuts and menu entries for any 
product ... to products that provide particular types of 
functionality,'' but nowhere defines 
``functionality.'' Without such definitions, Microsoft is 
free to decide what categories of middleware 
``functionality'' qualify for display. Thus, nothing 
prevents Microsoft from excluding non-Microsoft middleware products 
for which no Microsoft counterpart exists--;an obvious deterrent 
to competing middleware products that are more innovative than 
Microsoft's own products.
    Section III.C.2 ostensibly allows OEMs to distribute and promote 
non-Microsoft middleware through the display of shortcuts on the 
Windows desktop, but provides that the provision will apply only 
``so long as such shortcuts do not impair the functionality of 
the user interface.'' However, by never stating who determines 
when the ``functionality'' of Microsoft's operating system 
is impaired, the provision gives Microsoft free reign to decide 
which non-Microsoft products may be promoted by an OEM.
    Section III.C.3 permits OEMs to configure competing middleware 
products to launch automatically at the conclusion of the initial 
boot sequence or upon connection or disconnection from the Internet. 
CIS at 31. It also appears to prohibit ISVs and OEMs from palming-
off competing products by imitating Microsoft's trade dress. 
Nonetheless, the ambiguous wording of the provision would let 
Microsoft decide, in the first instance, which competing products 
may be displayed and what form the user interfaces (e.g., icons) may 
take. Moreover, as in III.C.1, the provision's benefits 
are tied to a ``functionality'' determination made by 
Microsoft. The automatic launch of competing Middleware is only 
assured ``if a Microsoft Middleware Product that provides 
similar functionality would otherwise be launched automatically at 
that time,'' which would again limit the settlement's reach to 
products with which Microsoft already competes.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\Section III.C.4 allows OEMs to offer alternative 
operating systems. While seemingly procompetitive, the government 
fails to acknowledge that there currently is no market for 
alternative operating systems. See CIS at 32. As the Court of 
Appeals explained, due in large part to network effects, there is no 
incentive for consumers to use or for ISVs to write programs for PC 
operating systems other than Windows. See CA at 49-;50, 55. 
Moreover, it is unclear that it is technologically feasible to 
include multiple operating systems on the same PC without 
sacrificing significant amounts of storage capacity or speed. No 
similar provision appeared in the Final Judgment, a fact which 
suggests that it is mere window-dressing (no pun intended) and does 
nothing to eliminate the barriers to competition erected by 
Microsoft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsection 5 allows OEMs to configure the Windows desktop to 
promote a non- Microsoft Internet access provider 
(``IAP'') in the initial boot sequence. The provision is 
problematic for two reasons. First, it permits Microsoft to require 
that such offers meet ``reasonable technical specifications 
established by Microsoft,'' which are never defined.
    Second, because it refers only to IAP offers, the proposed 
settlement prevents OEMs from offering any other type of product or 
service in the initial boot sequence. In striking contrast, the 
initial boot sequence for Windows XP offers a wide range of 
Microsoft products and services, including Passport, Hotmail, 
Instant Messenger and Internet telephony. Competition cannot be 
restored unless all competing middleware products, not just IAPs, 
are put on equal footing with Microsoft products. Because the 
proposed settlement allows Microsoft to retain the advantages of its 
operating system monopoly in the boot sequence by having an 
exclusive chance to promote its products and services, it fails to 
serve the public interest.
    Finally, nothing in the proposed settlement discusses 
OEMs' ability to offer an alternative desktop. Prior to 
Microsoft's prohibiting the practice, OEMs would change the 
appearance of the desktop in ways they found beneficial. D.Ct. at 
214. Some OEMs replaced the Windows desktop with a user 
interface of their own design or one that conformed with that of the 
OEM's selected browser. CA at 62-;64. The government previously 
advocated a provision in the Final Judgment that assured OEMs the 
ability to offer an alternative to the Windows desktop, subject to 
the proviso that an OEM may not completely block access to the 
Windows desktop. See Final Judgment 3(a)(iii)(3) (OEMs 
may ``display any user interfaces, provided that an icon is 
also displayed that allows the user to access the Windows user 
interface'').\17\ In the CIS, however, there is no explanation 
for the

[[Page 28601]]

omission in the proposed settlement of this and other OEM 
configuration options that the government strongly advocated before 
the District Court and on appeal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\The Court of Appeals found no justification for the 
restrictions on OEM configuration generally, but did hold that 
``a shell that automatically prevents the Windows desktop from 
ever being seen by the user is a drastic alteration of Microsoft's 
copyrighted work, and outweighs the marginal anticompetitive effect 
of prohibiting the OEMs from substituting a different interface 
automatically upon completion of the boot process.'' CA at 63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    c. Provisions That Purport To Allow End-Users And OEMS To Enable 
Or Remove Middleware Products Are Severely Flawed
    Section III.H of the proposed settlement purports to allow end-
users the freedom to add and remove middleware as they see fit. In 
actuality, the provision fails to do so because: (i) Microsoft is 
never required to permit an end-user or OEM to remove a Microsoft 
Middleware product from the PC's memory, only to 
``disable'' the functionality and ``remove'' the 
icon or other visual means of access; (ii) Microsoft continues to 
have full control over whether and when its products may override or 
launch in place of competing products; and (iii) the timetable for 
implementation renders the provision almost useless as a means of 
restoring competition.
    i. Inability To Actually Remove Microsoft Products From The 
Operating System Cripples The Effectiveness Of The Decree
    The Court of\ \ Appeals held that Microsoft's removal of IE 
from the add/remove utility Windows had the effect of reducing usage 
of rival browser products and violated Section 2. CA at 65. Loading 
the operating system with Microsoft middleware that cannot be 
removed imposes greater burdens on OEMs that choose to install 
competing middleware products? It also prevents consumers from 
receiving full access to the products and services of their choice. 
CA at 62, 65; D.Ct. at 174. Binding middleware products 
to the operating system also has a significant effect on the ability 
to remove Microsoft middleware, as it is difficult or impossible to 
remove the products without degrading Windows. CA at 66-;67; 
D.Ct. at 159.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\OEMs incur increased costs as a result of customer 
``hotline'' calls to the OEM. CA at 61. The additional 
program code also reduces the storage capacity of the computer and 
the speed of the processor. This is yet another way that Microsoft 
is able to erode OEM and consumer incentives to use competing 
middleware products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The government recognized that not being able to remove 
Microsoft middleware had the effect of ``foreclosing customer 
choice and excluding competition,'' Gov't D.Ct. Memo at 6, and 
that Microsoft used this as a means of increasing the barriers to 
entry for middleware. Id. at 42; Shapiro Decl. at 25-;26. 
Consequently, the relief initially requested by the government 
required that any Microsoft middleware product that was 
technologically bound to the operating system must be removable to 
create a ``stripped down'' version of Windows via the add/
remove utility. See Final Judgment 3(g)(i). No such 
requirement exists in the current settlement, however. Although the 
CIS states that section III.H ``ensures that OEMs will be able 
to choose to offer and promote, and consumers will be able to choose 
to use, Non-Microsoft Middleware Products,'' CIS at 45, the 
government now discusses the provision in terms of ``removing 
access'' to the middleware product without explaining that 
``removing access'' does not mean removing the product 
itself. Id.
    Because section III.H of the proposed settlement fails to 
require Microsoft to enable OEMs and end-users to remove unwanted 
Microsoft middleware from Windows, it facilitates commingling of 
code, raises rivals' costs, and renders product substitution 
illusory.
    ii. The Exceptions And Limitations Contained In The End User/OEM 
Control Provisions Swallow The Relief Provided And Permit Microsoft 
To Override OEM Or End-User Selections Of Preferred Middleware 
Products
    On the subject of OEM/end-user control, the proposed settlement 
replaces a provision of less than fifty words in the Final Judgment 
with a series of interlocking provisions that run over six hundred 
words. Compare Final Judgment 3(g)(i) with RPFJ 
III.H(1-;3). None of these limitations and exceptions 
were present in the interim relief the government advocated before 
the District Court previously, and the CIS is silent regarding the 
rationale for the avalanche of restrictions that it now proposes. 
Nor does the government suggest that the changes are needed in 
response to any holdings by the Court of Appeals.
    What the proposed provisions do is create so many exceptions, 
limitations, and loopholes as to vitiate the broad pronouncements in 
the CIS. Two aspects of section III.H exemplify the manner in which 
the proposed settlement undermines its own efficacy: (a) permitting 
Windows to automatically ask an end-user if he or she wants to alter 
the computer's desktop configuration to restore Microsoft middleware 
that was previously removed by an OEM; and (b) permitting Microsoft 
virtually unbridled discretion as to when to override an end-user's 
selection of a default web browser or other middleware.
    (a) Microsoft Can Alter End-User/OEM Choices
    As discussed above, the proposed settlement does not allow OEMs 
or end-users to actually remove Microsoft middleware from their 
computers, instead limiting them to merely deleting icons and menu 
entries; the middleware itself remains physically in the computer, 
or in many cases, technologically bound to the Windows operating 
system. Even a conscious decision by an OEM or end-user to remove 
Microsoft icons and menu items is subject to interference by 
Microsoft under the proposed settlement. Section III.H.3(a) allows 
Microsoft to include in the Windows operating system a prompt that 
would ask the end-user, fourteen days after the initial boot up of 
the computer, for permission to automatically erase the OEM's or 
end-user's configuration of the system and reinstate the Microsoft 
middleware that was previously deleted. RPFJ III.H.3(b).
    This provision is troublesome for a variety of reasons, not 
least its Orwellian reminder of Microsoft's omnipresence. Most 
importantly, it allows Microsoft to undermine the configuration 
choices made by OEMs that may include significant promotion of 
competing middleware. It allows Microsoft to do this fourteen days 
after an end-user first boots up the computer, at a time when the 
end-user may not yet have gained a great deal of familiarity with 
the computer. Depending on how the question is asked and the user's 
level of sophistication, the user may not understand that he or she 
is removing the programs installed by the computer's manufacturer 
and replacing them with Microsoft products that may not work as 
well. Furthermore, the prompt is unnecessary, because if a user 
wanted a different configuration, she would be free to buy the 
computer from another OEM or purchase additional software on her 
own.
    Nor is any limitation placed on the number of times Microsoft 
may ``suggest'' that the user alter the configuration. But 
regardless of how often Microsoft asks--;every day, every 
fourteen days, once a year, or only once--;the fact that it can 
raise the question at all not only undermines the OEM configuration, 
but also the goal of providing end-users with ``a separate and 
unbiased choice with regard to each Microsoft Middleware Product or 
Non-Microsoft Middleware Product.'' RPFJ III.H.1(b) 
(emphasis added); see also CIS at 48 (purpose of section III.H.3 is 
to prevent automatic alteration of OEM configuration, such as 
``sweeping the unused icons that the OEM has chosen to place on 
the Windows desktop''). There is no justification for 
permitting Microsoft to undercut this aspect of relief. Microsoft 
should be prohibited from ever prompting users to scuttle their OEM 
selections or desktop choices.
    (b) Microsoft Can Override End-User/OEM Middleware Default 
Choices
    Although section III.H.2 of the proposed settlement ostensibly 
enables end-users and OEMs (and middleware producers themselves) to 
designate non-Microsoft middleware products (including web browsers) 
to be invoked automatically in lieu of a Microsoft product, 
loopholes and conditions destroy this provision's utility as a 
remedial device.
    As an initial matter, the default election procedure is made 
reciprocal--;requiring that identical removal options be 
afforded Microsoft with respect to non-Microsoft middleware that 
would otherwise be the default. The government does not explain why 
such parity is being offered to an antitrust violator at the expense 
of those who have not violated the law.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\Although the Court of Appeals did not affirm the 
District Court's blanket conclusion that IE's override of competing 
default browsers was illegal in all circumstances (for example, when 
accessing Windows ``Help'' resources and updates on the 
Internet), CA at 65-;67, the proposed settlement swings much 
further in the other direction in permitting Microsoft to write the 
rules of when such an override of a user's designated default 
middleware product will be permitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More troubling are the ``Notwithstanding'' clauses 
that follow subsection 3, which directly limit the benefits extended 
by section III.H.2. Part 1 of the first clause allows Microsoft to 
invoke a Microsoft Middleware Product if it is necessary for the 
computer to interoperate with a server maintained by Microsoft. RPFJ 
III.H. Because so much middleware--;be it a web 
browser or a Java formulation--;now interacts with commercial 
web servers, which are to a large extent Microsoft web servers, the 
loophole created by this provision is

[[Page 28602]]

enormous. As computing moves off the desktop onto Internet servers, 
communication with servers is becoming the norm. Moreover, because 
IE has captured over 90% of the market as a result of Microsoft's 
illegal conduct, Microsoft is now positioned to dominate the server 
operating system market by changing the protocols its browser uses 
to communicate with servers, from the current industry standard to 
its own proprietary protocols. This will leave those who host web 
servers with little choice but to use a Windows server operating 
system. See pp. 70-;76 infra. Should this occur, the first 
``notwithstanding'' clause of the proposed settlement's 
section III.H will allow Microsoft to override users' default 
browser selections in the vast majority of situations. The ultimate 
outcome will be that the illegal Windows monopoly will again be 
protected from the threat to its dominance posed by non-Microsoft 
web-based computing.
    The second ``Notwithstanding'' clause in 
III.H allows a Microsoft Middleware Product to launch 
if the designated Non-Microsoft Middleware Product fails to 
implement a ``reasonable technical requirement (e.g., a 
requirement to be able to host a particular ActiveX control).'' 
RPFJ III.H. Because the proposed settlement leaves it 
to Microsoft to determine what a ``reasonable technical 
requirement'' would be, the loophole created by this provision 
is also enormous. To the extent the clause provides an example of 
such a failure to meet a technical requirement, the exception is 
overly broad. ActiveX is a programming environment that allows 
programs provided by servers to run locally on a PC inside the web 
browser. Its use replaces in part the cross-platform capabilities of 
Java and the open standard communication protocols used by most 
servers. Thus, by determining that the hosting of ActiveX is a 
``reasonable technical requirement,'' the proposed 
settlement ensures that anytime a Microsoft web product or service 
is launched or any product or service that relies on a Microsoft 
server is downloaded, Microsoft will be able to override a user's 
choice of browser. This provision grants Microsoft license to 
automatically override an end-user's browser choice when that user 
accesses a program or service that requires interaction with a 
Microsoft server. Far from restoring competition, this pernicious 
provision protects Microsoft's ill-gotten operating system monopoly 
from web-based competition.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\The last part of the ``technical 
requirements'' clause, moreover, puts the onus on ISVs to 
request the reason for the technical failure. Because ISVs are 
unlikely to be immediately aware that there is a technical failure 
on the part of their middleware, the burden must be placed on 
Microsoft to explain such overrides.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    iii. The Timing Of Implementation Of Section III.H Allows 
Microsoft To Reap The Fruits Of Its Past Illegal Conduct Without 
Adequately Limiting Its Conduct Today Or In The Future
    In addition to the foregoing serious deficiencies, the timetable 
in section III.H for implementation of the substantive provisions by 
itself renders the provision meaningless as a vehicle for restoring 
competition. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, section 
III.H will not be implemented until twelve months after submission 
of the settlement to the Court or at the release of the first 
service pack for Windows XP, whichever comes earlier. Because 
Microsoft is not bound by any of the provisions until that time, it 
has no incentive to release the first service pack prior to December 
2002. The provision is thus rendered meaningless for a fifth of the 
lifespan of the decree.
    Microsoft has no grounds to complain about burdens caused by 
making section III.H immediately effective. To the contrary, the 
year delay in implementation would reward Microsoft for its bad 
faith release of Windows XP, before a settlement was in place, with 
full knowledge that (notwithstanding the monopoly maintenance 
holding by the Court of Appeals) XP contains more bundled 
middleware, more commingled code, and more prompts for Microsoft-
related products and services than any prior version of Windows. At 
the very least, the release of XP violates the spirit of the 
settlement by which Microsoft claims it is already abiding. No 
minimally adequate settlement would fail to provide relief to the 
marketplace as soon as practicable.
    The proposed settlement also contains another glaring temporal 
loophole. The last paragraph of section III.H states that only the 
Microsoft Middleware Products that existed seven months prior to the 
last beta test on a new version of Windows will be subject to the 
requirements of the provision. This means that any new Microsoft 
product or service, developed six months or less prior to the date 
of the last beta test\21\ of a new Windows operating system 
release or major upgrade, would not be subject to the requirements 
that its icon or menu entry be removable from the operating system 
desktop or the requirement that the automatic launching of the 
product be disabled in favor of a competing middleware product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\``Beta test'' refers to the last round of 
testing for a new software product that is typically performed by 
sending the software product out to consumers and industry insiders 
both as a means of ironing out the kinks in the product and 
obtaining publicity for the impending release. There is no set date 
within the industry of when these ``tests'' are performed. 
They can occur months before or immediately proceeding a pending 
product release date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The government offers no justification for a proposed settlement 
that guts the section III.H ``removal'' provision with 
myriad and, in some cases themselves anticompetitive, limitations 
and loopholes, and then delays their implementation for significant 
portions of settlement's proposed five-year duration.
    In contrast to the current settlement's abundant accommodations 
to Microsoft, two years ago, the government categorically rejected 
Microsoft's complaints that it would be enable to comply with the 
``unbinding'' provisions the government then advocated 
(i.e., requiring that OEMs and end-users have the ability to engage 
the Add/Remove utility to delete IE):

    Microsoft's assertion that offering an ``unbinding'' 
option for OEMs and end-users for the few covered middleware 
products in existing operating systems would take ``far longer 
than six months, would cost hundreds of millions of dollars,'' 
and would result in a ``far inferior'' OS cannot be 
reconciled with the record in this case and the district court's 
findings.

    Gov't CA Brief at 132; Gov't D.Ct. Reply Memo at 63-;64 
(referring to its expert witness's ability to create a removal 
program that did not damage or degrade the operating system in a 
relatively short amount of time and the fact that Microsoft already 
provided a ready means of removing at least 80 components, many of 
which it considered ``integrated'' features of Windows). 
There is no reason, technical or otherwise, why the government 
should not insist upon timely and effective measures to prevent 
Microsoft from continuing to commingle its middleware with its 
operating system in blatant disregard of the Court of Appeals 
ruling.
    2. Provisions Designed To Protect Interoperability Between 
Microsoft Products And Non-Microsoft Products Are Seriously Flawed
    In the earlier remedy proceedings, the government explained the 
indispensable competitive importance of 
``interoperability'':\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\As a general matter, interoperability is the ability 
of different computers, servers or other devices, regardless of 
whether they use the same software and hardware, to freely transmit 
and receive information to and from each other.

    Microsoft's Operating System monopoly gives it the ability to 
favor Microsoft products in other markets, by refusing to disclose 
some of the Interfaces supported by Windows. Such a refusal would 
allow Microsoft to prevent some products from interoperating fully 
with Windows. Permitting all products to interoperate fully with 
Windows is necessary to ensure that that those products realize 
their full potential in terms of performance and functionality.
    Felton Decl. 51-;52 (emphasis added). Indeed, 
full interoperability has long been recognized by Microsoft, quite 
correctly, to be a primary threat to its monopoly position in the PC 
operating system market because it would allow multiple, competing 
operating system platforms to perform essentially all the functions 
of a Windows PC. CA at 52-;54; D.Ct. 68-;93; 
Henderson Decl. 12-;18, 29-;40; Shapiro Deck 
at 20-;21. Middleware, such as Netscape and Java, posed the 
initial competitive threat in using interoperability to shift 
computing away from the Windows PC (the ``middleware 
threat'').
    But, as recognized in District Court findings cited with 
approval or undisturbed by the Court of Appeals, server-based 
computing, which would shift many computing tasks from the Windows 
PC to a server on the Internet, also poses a significant threat to 
the Microsoft operating system monopoly. D.Ct. at 
24-;27 (see CA at 52). By preventing full 
interoperability, however, Microsoft can neutralize the server 
threat.
    Despite the government's claim that the proposed settlement 
achieved ``seamless interoperability between Windows Operating 
System Products and non-Microsoft servers on a network'' (CIS 
at 38), the proposed settlement would, in reality, enable Microsoft 
to withhold the disclosures necessary to

[[Page 28603]]

achieve interoperability and thus defeat this goal. The proposed 
settlement would do nothing to achieve interoperability between a 
non-Microsoft server operating system and Windows or IE. Instead, 
the only disclosure requirements are both ineffectual and too 
narrow: They apply only to PC middleware and certain client 
protocols, disclosures which are insufficient, on their own, to 
create interoperability between a PC and a server or among servers. 
Thus, instead of preserving threats to the Microsoft monopoly from 
all sources, the settlement gives Microsoft a free shot at disabling 
server competition.
    a. The Government's Original Remedy Required Broad And 
Meaningful Interoperability Disclosure By Microsoft
    During the initial remedy proceedings before the District Court, 
the government recognized that new threats were emerging to 
Microsoft's monopoly in the PC operating system market. Gov't D.Ct. 
Memo at 29. The government recognized the likelihood that, in the 
future, most computing will be done through networks and on servers 
housed at remote locations, with personal computer use diminishing. 
The government acknowledged that, as a result, software for 
communicating with servers, operating systems for servers, and 
middleware designed to function on servers, had become a principal 
competitive threat to the Microsoft PC operating system monopoly. 
Id.; see also Henderson Decl. 13-;16; Shapiro Decl. 
at 20-;21.
    The ``server threat'' arises from the following 
circumstances, as the government recognizes. Instead of using an 
expensive, ``intelligent PC'', which contains a Windows 
operating system, a substantial hard drive and a powerful 
microprocessor, consumers increasingly use simpler or smaller, more 
convenient devices, such as cell phones, PDAs (such as 
``Palm'' or ``Blackberry'' devices), TV-set-top 
boxes, or ``dumb PCs,'' all of which are typically 
equipped only with more basic (and often non-Microsoft) operating 
systems, a browser, smaller (if any) hard drives, and a 
microprocessor. D.Ct. at 22-;27; Henderson Decl. 
13-;16, 91-;92; Shapiro Decl. at 3-;4. 
The consumer will then use this device's browser to connect to the 
network of servers on the Internet.
    By accessing servers on the Internet, the consumer can perform 
most of the same computing functions (access/browse the Internet; 
word processing; e-mail; instant messaging, etc.) that are provided 
by a Windows PC, but at lower cost and much greater convenience. For 
example, under the PC computing model, to compose and spell-check a 
document, the PC's processor is used to process the relevant 
software program to perform the functions. Under the server-network 
computing model, however, the same function (compose and spell-check 
a document) is accomplished through the server, which processes the 
relevant software program and then transmits the document back to 
the PC. The PC operating system under this scenario does little more 
than transmit and receive the data. The actual computing functions 
are largely performed by the server's operating system and hardware. 
Similarly, far more complex applications can be offered on the 
Internet through high-powered servers effectively shared by 
thousands or millions of consumers.
    The government recognized the overriding importance of server 
software and communications protocols in supporting the original 
Final Judgment:

    As computing continues to move off the desktop and into the 
internet, middleware threats could develop on servers, in either 
server operating systems or server applications. Microsoft cannot 
defeat these threats by bundling its own version of such software 
into its PC operating systems, but it could use its operating system 
monopoly in other ways to crush any such middleware threats. For 
example, Microsoft's new Windows 2000 operating system, to which 
Microsoft intends to migrate its existing Windows users, is designed 
with proprietary features and interfaces that enable Microsoft's 
server operating systems to interoperate with PCs more effectively 
than other server operating systems. If Microsoft were in a 
competitive market, it would disclose its confidential interface 
information to other server software developers so that their 
complementary software would work optimally with, and thereby 
enhance the value of, Microsoft's PC operating systems. But, if 
faced with a middleware threat on the servers, Microsoft is likely 
to continue to withhold that information from competitors in order 
to protect its operating system monopoly. Gov't D.Ct. Memo at 29 
(emphasis added).

    The government's expert in the remedy proceedings underlined the 
importance of the server-based computing model as a critical 
emerging threat to Microsoft's PC operating system monopoly. Rebecca 
Henderson, a professor from MIT with a doctorate in Business 
Economics from Harvard University, testified:

    Server-based computing could reduce the applications barrier to 
entry in the PC operating system market. If server-based 
applications are supported in a way that permits end-user access to 
full-featured application functionality on a truly cross-platform 
basis, users will be able to access them through any PC operating 
system they choose. Indeed, server software already acts as cross-
platform middleware for a few network-centric applications. Web-
based e- mail programs, for example, can be hosted on almost any 
server operating system and used to send e-mail to and from a wide 
range of clients, including Windows PCs, handheld computers and 
wireless phones. As the bandwidth available to PC consumers expands, 
server software could become an increasingly attractive platform for 
developers interested in writing full-featured applications for PC 
owners. For example, an accounting package could be 
``hosted'' on a web server. If it were designed to be 
sufficiently cross-platform, and if technology permits, consumers 
could access its functionality using either a Windows PC or an 
alternative device.

Henderson Decl. 14-;15.
    Microsoft recognizes the server threat to its PC operating 
system monopoly. D.Ct. at 60. Its strategy has been to use its 
monopoly control over the PC's operating system and IE to force 
websites on the Internet to use Microsoft server operating systems, 
even if they are otherwise not the most desirable choices. To do 
this, Microsoft can withhold disclosure of communications interfaces 
and protocols for IE, at the same time as it changes them from 
previously disclosed interoperable formulations. The objective is to 
make IE fully interoperable only with a Microsoft server operating 
system, and to restrict server-to-server communication only to 
Microsoft server operating systems. In addition, Microsoft can fail 
to disclose to competitors the server protocols that facilitate full 
interoperability between a Windows PC and a Microsoft server 
operating system, or between servers. As a result, Microsoft's 
server operating system will always interoperate better with a 
Windows PC operating system or Microsoft server operating system 
than any competitors' operating systems. These two actions, 
taken together, will enable Microsoft server operating systems to 
dominate the Internet, because website owners will need a server 
that interoperates with the more than 90% of all Internet users that 
use IE, while consumers will continue to buy the Windows PC 
operating system because of the applications barrier to entry. In 
this manner, Microsoft will easily defeat the threat that web-based 
computing poses to the PC operating systems monopoly by dominating 
server operating systems and server applications software. Any 
``dumb PC,'' cell phone or handheld device, which relies 
on a server on the Internet to perform the actual computing 
functions, will either have to use Microsoft operating system 
software or face elimination from the marketplace.
    During the original remedy proceedings, the government's expert 
economist, Carl Shapiro, explained the importance of a powerful 
conduct remedy that would require Microsoft to provide timely 
disclosure of all APIs, protocols and other technical information 
necessary to allow all server operating systems to fully 
interoperate with a Windows PC operating system and Microsoft 
middleware, particularly IE:

    Mandatory disclosure of interface information also will prevent 
Microsoft from using its Windows monopoly power to gain control of 
complementary applications and middleware... Two especially 
important software products today that are complementary to the 
Windows operating system on personal computers are operating systems 
on handheld devices and operating systems on servers... Indeed, a 
good case can be made that the most significant threat to Windows in 
the next several years will come from client/server architectures. 
Making sure that Microsoft cannot subvert this threat using 
undisclosed proprietary interfaces is thus central to an effective 
remedy in this case.

Shapiro Decl. at 20-;21 (emphasis added).
    For this reason, the government proposed, and the District Court 
granted a remedy, requiring disclosure of ``all APIs, technical 
information and Communications Interfaces'' that enabled:

    any Microsoft software installed on one computer (including but 
not limited to server operating systems and operating system for

[[Page 28604]]

handheld devices) to interoperate with a Windows operating system 
(or middleware distributed with such operating system) installed on 
a Personal Computer.

Final Judgment 3(b)(iii).
    The effect of this provision was to promote competition in the 
PC operating system market by using interoperability disclosure to 
support the server and middleware threats to Microsoft's monopoly. 
These crucial interoperability disclosure provisions required full 
disclosure of:
    (1) all technical information, including both client protocols 
and server protocols which allow a Windows PC and a Microsoft server 
operating system to fully interoperate with each other; and
    (2) all technical information that enables Microsoft Middleware, 
such as IE, to fully interoperate with a Microsoft server operating 
system.
    Microsoft's claim that remedies which affect the PC/server and 
server/server relationships are outside of the Sherman Act 
2 monopolization claims before the Court is 
insupportable. Defendant Microsoft Corporation's Remedial Proposal 
at 6-;7 (Dec. 12, 2002) (brief filed in response to the 
Plaintiff Litigating States'' Remedial Proposals). To the 
contrary, both sides presented evidence on this issue in the prior 
proceedings, and both this Court and the Court of Appeals were 
particularly concerned to ensure that the nascent middleware threats 
to Microsoft's PC operating system monopoly be protected from 
further anticompetitive conduct. See, e.g., CA at 79 (``it 
would be inimical to the purpose of the Sherman Act to allow 
monopolists free reign to squash nascent, albeit unproven, 
competitors at will--;particularly in industries marked by rapid 
technological advance and frequent paradigm shifts''); D.Ct. at 
24-;27, 56, 60.
    Indeed, when Microsoft made the same argument during the 
original remedy proceedings, the government tersely exposed its 
fallacy:

    Microsoft can hardly argue that client/server interoperability 
issues are unrelated to the trial. In the first place, its own 
expert, Dean Schmalensee, testified that control over the browser 
could enable a firm to ``severely'' affect the 
functionality of server applications... Second, having argued during 
the trial that Microsoft lacked monopoly power in the operating-
systems market because of the future potential of server-based 
applications, Microsoft can hardly contend now that it should be 
free to frustrate the threat to the Windows monopoly posed by such 
server-based applications by withholding critical information needed 
for those applications to interoperate with Windows.

    Gov't D.Ct. Reply Memo at 49 (internal citations omitted).
    b. The Proposed Settlement's Interoperability Disclosure 
Requirements Are Wholly Inadequate
    The interoperability disclosure provision in the proposed 
settlement is seriously deficient in the following ways: (1) no 
interoperability disclosure protection is afforded to important 
competitive threats to Microsoft's PC operating system monopoly, 
including non-Microsoft operating systems for servers and embedded 
devices (i.e., cell phones, PDAs, set-top boxes)\23\23; (2) 
the technical information that is required to be disclosed is too 
limited to be effective; (3) the timing of required disclosures is 
either too late or too vague; and (4) the definitions of major terms 
(API, operating system, middleware) would enable Microsoft to avoid 
disclosure to competitors, by claiming certain middleware or 
application products are part of the operating system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\With regard to server interoperability, the proposed 
settlement only requires ``client protocols'' to be 
disclosed. As is fully explained below, to achieve full 
interoperability between a PC (``client'') and a server, 
there must be disclosure of both client and server protocols, so 
that the server can accept and transmit data and services to the PC. 
By disclosing only the client protocol, only one-half of the 
transaction (PC to server) is achieved, thus defeating the server's 
ability to fully interoperate with the PC. See pp. 70-;72 
infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    i. Important Areas Of Potential Competition In The Monopolized 
Market Are Not Included In The Interoperability Disclosure Provision
    The proposed settlement fails to provide essential disclosure of 
technical information necessary to ensure interoperability in at 
least four critical areas: (a) between Windows PC operating systems 
and non-Microsoft server operating systems; (b) between Microsoft 
middleware, particularly IE, and non-Microsoft server operating 
systems; (c) between Microsoft and non-Microsoft server operating 
systems; and (d) between Microsoft PC or server operating systems 
and non-Microsoft embedded devices. The absence of such protection 
effectively encourages Microsoft to dominate server operating 
systems and software in order to protect its PC operating system 
monopoly.
    (a) The Proposed Settlement Will Not Achieve Server 
Interoperability
    Although the government continues to espouse the public interest 
goal of ``seamless interoperability'' for servers, CIS at 
38, the proposed settlement does not if fact achieve that result. 
The failure to ensure this essential remedial goal contrasts sharply 
with the District Court's findings of fact and conclusion of law, 
which were entirely affirmed or undisturbed by the Court of Appeals, 
establishing that Microsoft's conduct, in selectively disclosing or 
entirely withholding such technical information, plainly violated 
Sherman Act 2. CA at 71-;73; D.Ct. at 
90-;92, 338-;40.
    As late as November 2, 2001--;four days before it reached 
the present settlement agreement with Microsoft--;the government 
still insisted that server interoperability was essential to any 
settlement. The government's settlement proposal on that date 
expressly required server interoperability disclosure:
    Microsoft shall make available for use by third parties, for the 
sole purpose of interoperating with a Windows operating system 
product ... any communications protocol that is... (i) implemented 
in the Windows operating system product installed on a client 
computer, and (ii) used to interoperate natively (i.e., without the 
addition of software code to the client or server operating system 
products) with Windows 2000 server products or products marketed as 
its successors installed on a server computer.
    Department of Justice, Proposed Final Judgment, Draft of 
November 2, 2001 at III.E. (emphasis supplied)' 
Pursuant to this provision, Microsoft would have been required to 
disclose both its client protocols and the server protocols which 
enable a PC and a server operating system to accept and transmit 
data to each other?\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\A protocol is a piece of an operating system's 
software code that allows the operating system to translate, and 
thus understand, the language of another computer or server that is 
attempting to transmit data. When a PC (``client'') and a 
server are transmitting and accepting information or services 
between each other over the internet, server protocols allow the 
server operating system to accept and understand the information or 
services being transmitted from the client. In other words, the 
server protocols allow the server to transmit information to the PC 
by converting the information from the server's computer language to 
the PC's computer language. The client protocols perform the 
opposite task, allowing the PC to fully interoperate with the 
server. In order to process information from PC to server, and from 
server to PC, it is essential that both server and client protocols 
be provided. Without knowledge of the appropriate server protocols 
necessary to interoperate with a Windows PC, an ISV cannot design an 
operating system for a server which will properly interoperate with 
the Windows PC operating system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed settlement, however, deleted the requirement that 
server protocols be disclosed. This was accomplished by removing the 
words ``or server'' from the provision quoted above. RPFJ 
III (E), November 6, 2001. This directly contradicts 
the view of the government's technical expert, who testified that if 
Microsoft were able to withhold from disclosure the server 
protocols:

    [it] would give Microsoft the power to choose which server 
operating system products could interoperate with Windows .... A 
customer who felt compelled to buy client Windows Operating System 
Products would therefore additionally be compelled, due to his 
desire for interoperability, to buy his server Operating System 
Products from Microsoft or another vendor to whom Microsoft chose to 
disclose the new protocol. Microsoft's refusal to disclose the 
[server protocol] would prevent some competing server Operating 
System Products from interoperating fully with Windows, and thus 
would put them at a significant disadvantage.

Felton Decl. 53-;57.
    By removing the server protocol disclosure requirement, the 
proposed settlement virtually ensures that non-Microsoft server 
operating systems will never be viable, competitive alternatives to 
the Windows PC operating system monopoly. The client protocols that 
Microsoft is required to disclose will only allow the server to 
receive data or services from the PC. The other half of the 
transaction, whereby the server responds and sends data to the PC, 
cannot be accomplished without the server protocols. As a result, 
ISVs will not be able, on their own, to develop server operating 
systems that can fully interoperate with Windows PC. The 
government's expert has admitted that this eliminates the 
possibility that non-Microsoft

[[Page 28605]]

servers would ever become a competitive threat to Microsoft's PC 
operating system monopoly:

    [T]he two provisions relating to the disclosure of APIs, 
interfaces and technical information ... are exceptionally urgent 
... [a]s long as Microsoft retains its monopoly power, the ability 
to withhold information and to deny interoperability in this way 
will be a fearsome threat. The development of server-based full-
featured PC applications, for example, would be completely crippled 
if these applications could not be accessed from a Windows PC, or 
could only be accessed in a disadvantaged way, since no one would be 
willing to invest in building them. Requiring Microsoft to disclose 
its interface information... provides a necessary check on 
Microsoft's ability to exploit its illegally obtained position to 
exclude competitors.

Henderson Decl. 115-;121 (emphasis added).
    Quite simply, because Microsoft will not have to disclose any 
server protocols, this disclosure provision will not achieve 
``seamless interoperability'' between a Windows PC and a 
non-Microsoft server operating system or aid in restoring even a 
vestige of competition to the PC operating system market.
    (b) The Settlement Fails To Require Disclosure To Enable 
Interoperability Between Internet Explorer And Non-Microsoft Servers
    During the original remedy proceedings the government 
acknowledged the crucial importance of requiring full disclosure of 
all technical information relevant to the interoperability between 
Microsoft's middleware products, particularly IE, and server 
operating systems.
    As explained by a government expert, if Microsoft maintains 
control over the browser-server interaction (as it would under the 
proposed settlement), it can maintain its PC operating system 
monopoly by foreclosing the ability of a web server to interoperate 
with IE:

    Owning the dominant browser gives Microsoft great influence over 
the evolution of important Internet interfaces. As Paul Maritz 
recognized, ``By controlling the client, you also control the 
servers.'' GX 498, at MS980168614. See also GX279 (discussing 
the role of standards in establishing Internet platform, Maritz 
explained, ``The key is to win the client (patch up the server 
later)''). This set of interfaces goes beyond the browser APIs 
to which developers can directly write applications, to include the 
set of interfaces that constitute the communications protocols 
between the browser and the network. For information to be received 
and viewed in Internet Explorer, the developer has to follow these 
interfaces.
    The ability to influence development of web-based applications 
is a highly valuable tool for future anticompetitive campaigns 
should Microsoft choose to mount them. As web-based applications 
grow in importance, so does Microsoft's ability to steer them 
towards being IE-centric, and, given its control over the browser-
to-operating system interface, Windows-centric as well.

Henderson Decl. 81-;86 (internal citations to trial record). 
The proposed settlement, however, completely abandons the disclosure 
provision necessary to prevent Microsoft from using its control of 
IE to eliminate demand for non-Microsoft server operating systems as 
a competitive alternative to Microsoft's PC operating system 
monopoly.
    Under the proposed settlement, Microsoft has no obligation 
whatever to disclose any technical information--;APIs, 
communications interfaces or otherwise--;that would permit a 
non-Microsoft server operating system to interoperate with 
Microsoft's Middleware, including IE. The only disclosure obligation 
under the proposed settlement involving Microsoft Middleware 
requires disclosure of APIs relevant to interoperability with a 
``Windows Operating System Product,'' a term which is 
defined to include only ``the software code...distributed 
commercially by Microsoft for use with a personal computer.'' 
RPFJ III.D, VI.U (emphasis added). For example, 
this provision would not require any disclosure for the purpose of 
allowing competing server operating systems to interoperate with IE, 
the very product that the Court of Appeals held was used by 
Microsoft to illegally maintain its monopoly power. CA at 
64-;68.
    As a result, under the proposed settlement, only Microsoft 
server operating systems will be guaranteed access to the 
proprietary APIs and communications interfaces necessary for a 
server to interoperate with IE. If a website owner purchases a non-
Microsoft server operating system, the more than 90% of consumers 
who use IE on their Windows PC would be unable to access that 
website unless Microsoft had agreed to separately license the 
technical information required for interoperability.
    Of equal significance is Microsoft's recent decision not to 
distribute Java as part of Windows XP. Java had been included in 
prior versions of Windows. Java is a software program that is an 
open industry standard; it allows websites both to operate on 
numerous non-Microsoft operating systems and to display rich colors 
and graphics to enhance the website's appearance. CA at 74-;75; 
D.Ct. at 386-;405. Approximately 50% of all 
websites currently on the Internet, including SBC's website, are 
Java-compatible. Microsoft dropped distribution of Java in favor of 
promoting ActiveX, which is Microsoft's proprietary software that 
competes with Java by allowing a web server to process an Internet-
based application in a fashion similar to Java. ActiveX is a 
proprietary browser interface that is installed as part of the 
software code for IE. As a result, the only way a non-Microsoft 
server operating system can obtain the proprietary interfaces for 
ActiveX (or for Internet Explorer generally) is through a license 
from Microsoft. If Microsoft chooses to make IE's protocols a 
completely undisclosed, proprietary standard, which it is free to do 
under the proposed settlement, Microsoft's PC operating system 
monopoly will be perpetuated, because the already formidable 
applications barrier to entry will be increased, and the server 
threat will be further diminished. This will occur as a result of 
two interrelated effects. First, website owners will be forced to 
purchase Microsoft server operating systems to ensure that their 
website remains fully accessible by the more than 90% of consumers 
who use IE. Second, for this reason among others, the vast majority 
of applications that are already written exclusively to interoperate 
with Windows will be increased, as ISVs' commercial need to 
write their Internet-based applications to be compatible with IE and 
ActiveX will increase. As time goes on, the number of servers which 
interoperate with Java and other browsers will continue to fall. 
Moreover, consumers who want to browse the Internet, that is, to 
access what will become the overwhelming majority of websites run on 
a Microsoft server operating system, will have to use IE and to get 
it, they will need a Windows PC operating system or another device 
that runs on Microsoft software. In the end, the prospect of 
``dumb PCs,'' cell phones and handheld devices equipped 
with non-Microsoft operating systems and browsers also will be 
eliminated.
    SBC's own website provides an example of the exclusionary effect 
this lack of disclosure will have on non-Microsoft server operating 
system. SBC uses non-Microsoft operating systems on its website 
servers, and the website is designed to be compatible with Java. 
Because Windows XP (unlike earlier Windows versions) does not 
contain Java, when Windows XP users attempt to access SBC's website, 
they receive a message that ``to display this page correctly, 
you need to download and install the following components: Java 
Virtual Machine.'' However, to make this (free) download on a 
normal dial-up connection will take the consumer over 30 minutes in 
normal conditions (i.e., low network congestion and latency), and an 
hour or more during times of peak usage. Thus, by dropping Java from 
Windows XP and failing to disclose its browser interfaces (which 
would enable SBC to obtain programs that could achieve 
``seamless interoperability'' with Windows XP), Microsoft 
has compelled the consumer to undertake a confusing and lengthy 
download process. This creates an anticompetitive barrier to 
consumers' use of SBC's website and entrenches the Windows 
monopoly.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\In October 2001, Microsoft dispelled any doubt 
whatever that it would use its control of Internet Explorer and 
Microsoft server operating systems to exclude competing browsers, 
when it blocked access to its MSN.com server for Netscape's and 
Opera's competing browsers. See p. 80 infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (e) The Proposed Settlement Does Not Contain An Interoperabillty 
Disclosure Provision To Cover Server-To-Server Communications
    Another corollary to the potential transition from the PC to a 
server-based computing environment is the need for a vastly 
increased volume of server-to-server communication transmissions. 
The proposed settlement contains no provision requiring disclosure 
of any technical information whatever to facilitate such 
communications--;``interoperability''--;between 
Microsoft and non-Microsoft server operating systems. The government 
offers no explanation for its absence, which will have

[[Page 28606]]

the predictable effect of further diminishing the server threat to 
Microsoft's PC operating system monopoly, while also restraining 
competition in the server operating system market itself. All of the 
same deficiencies in interoperability discussed above with respect 
to PCs and servers also apply to server-to-server communications as 
well. For this reason, the same outcome is certain to occur: an 
overwhelming percentage of servers on the Internet will be forced to 
use a Microsoft operating system. If Microsoft is not required to 
disclose any of the technical information necessary interoperate 
with Microsoft's server operating system, the demand for non- 
Microsoft server operating systems will be significantly reduced. As 
a result, the Internet-based threat to Microsoft's PC operating 
system monopoly will be neutralized.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\The Litigating States' proposal properly 
requires full disclosure of all technical information necessary to 
design a non-Microsoft server operating system that would be fully 
interoperable with a Microsoft server operating system. Litigating 
States'' 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (d) The Proposed Settlement Does Not Contain Interoperability 
Disclosure Provisions To Cover ``Embedded Devices''
    Like a ``dumb PC,'' an ``embedded device'' 
(such as a cell phone, PDA or set-top box) also can provide a 
viable, competitive alternative to a Windows PC. The government once 
again admitted this in prior remedy proceedings when it included 
embedded devices in the interoperability disclosure provisions:

    It is also possible that some of the middleware now being 
developed for alternative client devices--;such as the handheld 
computer, the Personal Digital Assistant (PDA), the so-called 
``Internet Appliance,'' or the wireless 
telephone--;might one day attract developers in large numbers. 
If ported to the PC, this middleware could then begin to erode the 
applications barrier to entry to the PC operating system market.

Henderson Decl. 16. See Final Judgment (3)(b)(iii) 
(requiting full disclosure of all technical information relevant to 
interoperability between operating systems of handheld devices and 
Windows PCs).
    The government's position at the time rested squarely on 
District Court findings that such devices could present an 
alternative to a Windows PC in the future. D.Ct. at 
22-;23. Those findings were not disturbed on appeal and remain 
binding today. CA at 52 (handheld devices could, but do not yet, 
perform enough functions to be an alternative to a Windows PC.)
    In the proposed settlement, this essential salutary provision 
has been removed without explanation by the government. The result 
is to eliminate another potential threat to Microsoft's PC operating 
system monopoly, while also giving Microsoft a significant advantage 
in the closely connected market for operating systems for such 
embedded devices.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\The Litigating States' proposal justifiably 
requires full disclosure of all technical information relevant to 
the interoperability between a Microsoft PC or server operating 
system and any embedded device. Litigating States'' 
4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (e) The Technical Information That Is Required To Be Disclosed 
Under The Proposed Settlement Is Insufficient To Achieve 
Interoperability
    Even in those situations where the proposed settlement does 
require Microsoft to disclose certain technical information 
(interoperability between Microsoft middleware and Windows PC 
operating system; client protocols), the type and extent of the 
disclosure is inadequate to promote competition, because it fails to 
achieve the ``seamless interoperability'' that the 
government admits is essential to provide an effective remedy for 
Microsoft's antitrust violations.
    While the government now claims to have achieved equal access to 
the ``same interfaces and related information'' for non-
Microsoft and Microsoft middleware developers (CIS at 33), this is 
not correct. Specifically, the proposed settlement only requires 
disclosure of ``the APIs and related documentation'' used 
by Microsoft Middleware to interoperate with a ``Windows 
Operating System Product.'' RPFJ <III.D. This 
limited disclosure is in stark contrast to the disclosure the 
government sought, and obtained, in the Final Judgment. Final 
Judgment 3(b). At that time, the government required 
disclosure of ``all APIs, technical information and 
communications interfaces'' to achieve interoperability. Id. 
(emphasis added).
    For example, by limiting disclosure to APIs, the government has 
left out important additional technical information that is 
indispensable for a middleware product to achieve ``seamless 
interoperability'' with a Windows PC operating system. In 
addition, the definition of what constitutes an ``API'' is 
drawn too narrowly in the proposed settlement; it does not include 
items like registry keys, file formats, communications protocols and 
other necessary technical information that is critical for an ISV to 
develop a middleware product that is fully interoperable. See RPFJ 
VI.A. This stands in sharp contrast, once again, to 
what the government advocated in the Final Judgment, when its own 
expert explained that disclosure of all APIs, communications 
interfaces and other related technical information was essential to 
promote full interoperability. Felton Decl. 15-;28. 
The government offers no explanation for its change of position. See 
Final Judgment 7(b); Litigating States' 
22(c).
    The same deficient definitions apply to the type of technical 
information that Microsoft must disclose to promote interoperability 
between a non-Microsoft server operating system and a Windows PC 
operating system. RPFJ III.E. Such disclosure is now 
limited only to ``client protocols,'' while the Final 
Judgment required disclosure of ``all APIs, Technical 
Information and Communications Interfaces'' necessary to 
achieve full interoperability. Final Judgment 3(b); 
Litigating States' 4. The proposed settlement's 
limited disclosure obligation has grave negative ramifications for 
ISVs seeking to achieve full interoperability. First, as stated 
above, both the client and server protocols are necessary to achieve 
interoperability between a PC operating system and a server 
operating system. Moreover, there is substantial additional 
technical information that far exceeds a ``communications 
protocol.'' Such additional information includes APIs, software 
tools, file formats and other technical information without which a 
non-Microsoft server operating system will never achieve 
``seamless interoperability'' with a Windows PC, let alone 
operate as well as a Microsoft server operating system.
    The possibility that Microsoft will maintain its PC monopoly in 
this manner is not hypothetical. In fact, in the absence of strong 
remedial provisions, not only is Microsoft certain to use 
disclosure, or the lack thereof, to create and maintain an advantage 
over its competitors, but it has already used the very same control 
over communications protocols and the like to disrupt competing 
browsers' ability to communicate with its own servers over the 
Internet. At the time of the release of Windows XP just last 
October, Microsoft secretly changed the MSN web server program codes 
to specifically prevent the competing browsers Netscape Navigator 
and Opera from interoperating with the MSN web server.\28\ Browser 
Bruiser, Chicago Sun Times, October 27, 2001, at 36 
(``Microsoft's premiere web portal, MSN.com, denied entry to 
millions of people who use alternative browser software such as 
Opera and told them to get Microsoft's products instead.''); 
MSN Shuts Out Other Browsers, Associated Press, October 28, 2001 
(``Microsoft's premiere web portal, MSN.com, denied entry to 
millions of people who use alternative browser software such as 
Opera...The blockage coincided with Microsoft's showcase launch of 
its Windows XP operating system. Instead of getting MSN's news, 
games and shopping features, Opera users were given links to 
download Microsoft's browsers.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\When browsers connect to a web server, they send 
information identifying specifically which browser it is and the 
capabilities of that browser. Programmers often code their web 
servers to be aware of browser differences so that the web server 
can provide a richer end-user experience. It is unusual, to say the 
least, to use browser and web server capabilities in this way to 
deny access.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (f) The Timing Of The Required Disclosure Under The Proposed 
Settlement Will Impede, Not Promote, Competition
    To restore competition in the PC operating system market, proper 
timing is no less important than the substance of the required 
disclosures. The District Court made multiple findings of fact, 
affirmed by the Court of Appeals, which established that delayed 
disclosure of technical information to achieve interoperability 
effectively nullifies its value. D.Ct. at 338-;40; CA at 
71-;73. The ``time to market'' in developing software 
is of the utmost importance. Id. The ability of an ISV even to 
attempt to compete with Microsoft is ``highly dependent'' 
on Microsoft's release of its technical information relevant to 
interoperability. Id. Netscape learned this lesson in 1995 when 
Microsoft, in the face of repeated demands from Netscape for 
technical information regarding interoperability with Windows 95, 
withheld this technical information from

[[Page 28607]]

Netscape for approximately three months. D.Ct. at 
90-;92. While Netscape was waiting for this 
information, Microsoft brought to market its competing 
product--;Internet Explorer. Id. The result of this delay was to 
destroy any fair competitive challenge Netscape might mount against 
Internet Explorer. Id.
    The government has previously acknowledged that the proper 
timing of disclosure of technical information related to 
interoperability is critical to restore competition to the PC 
operating system market. Gov't D.Ct. Reply Memo at 21-;23. As a 
result, the government sought provisions in the Final Judgment that 
required the timing of all disclosures to be made when Microsoft 
disclosed the information to its own developers, and well in advance 
of when any new Windows product is brought to market. Final Judgment 
3(b).
    Having manipulated for its own competitive advantage the timing 
of interoperability disclosures in the past, it is not surprising 
that Microsoft demanded very liberal and vague timing in the 
proposed settlement. The government, however, having litigated and 
prevailed on the timing issue, now largely gives up. The proposed 
settlement does not require the disclosure of technical information 
related to interoperability of Microsoft Middleware products to 
begin until the ``earlier of the release of Service Pack I for 
Windows XP or twelve months after the submission of this Final 
Judgment.'' RPFJ III.D. If Microsoft intends to 
introduce a new Middleware Product, it does not have to disclose any 
technical information related to interoperability until the 
product's ``last major beta test.'' Id. All other 
disclosures must be made in a ``Timely Manner,'' which is 
defined as the ``time Microsoft first releases a beta test ... 
that is distributed to 150,000 or more beta testers.'' Id. 
VI.R.
    Similarly, the disclosure of client protocols contained in the 
Windows PC operating system are not required to begin until nine 
months after the submission of the final judgment, and all 
subsequent disclosures are not regulated as to time, and thus left 
solely within the discretion of Microsoft. RPFJ III.E.
    The inadequacy of these timing requirements is patent. There is 
no conceivable justification, and none has been offered, for 
delaying disclosure with respect to Microsoft's current products for 
nine to twelve months from the date of the settlement. By 
definition, Microsoft knows, and its programmers have access to, 
current product information today. The delay built into the 
settlement simply allows Microsoft time to exploit its proven 
monopoly for another year so that Microsoft's products will have an 
even greater advantage when disclosure finally begins.
    With respect to new middleware products and others, the timing 
of disclosure also fails to serve the public interest. Disclosure 
for a new middleware product is not required until the new product's 
``last major beta test'', which is also an undefined term. 
RPFJ III.D. As to all other middleware disclosures, 
Microsoft is free to decide when to conduct the required beta test 
to 150,000 or more beta testers. RPFJ III.D. With 
respect to the disclosure of client protocols, Microsoft is not 
subject to any time limit whatever. RPFJ III.E. These 
provisions effectively immunize continued anticompetitive conduct. 
Microsoft is essentially given free rein to choose when it will be 
most advantageous in terms of marketing its products to make the 
required disclosures; and prior to disclosure it is free to develop 
and position its products for maximum competitive advantage.
    Once again, the CIS provides no explanation why Microsoft's 
disclosure obligations should not commence immediately, and why at 
all times thereafter, should not be made as soon as information is 
available to Microsoft's own programmers. CIS at 34-;35. For 
example, the ``beta test'' standard in the proposed 
settlement is far too late to be competitively meaningful. A beta 
test is one of the last steps taken by a software developer before 
placing a new product on the market. It is often viewed as more of a 
marketing tool (to create a ``buzz'' among technology 
writers and other cognoscenti), rather than a true development step. 
Thus, if Microsoft is allowed to wait until this point, it will be 
able to do to other software developers exactly what it did to 
Netscape in 1995--;ensure that a competing product is so late to 
market that it faces an insurmountable barrier to overtake 
Microsoft's lead. D.Ct. at 90-;92.
    The Final Judgment and Litigating States' proposal are 
much more rational, and likely to lead to meaningful disclosure that 
would promote interoperability and competition. All disclosures 
under the Final Judgment and Litigating States' proposal are 
required to be made in a ``timely manner,'' which is 
precisely defined as, at a minimum, the earliest of the following 
times:

    (i) When the information is disclosed to Microsoft's own 
application developers;
    (ii) When the information is used by Microsoft's ``own 
platform software developers in software released by Microsoft in 
alpha, beta release candidate, final or other form'';
    (iii) When the information is disclosed to any third party; or
    (iv) Within ninety days of the final release of the Windows 
operating system product, but ``no less than five days after a 
material change is made between the most recent beta for release 
candidate version and the final release.''

Final Judgment 7(ee); Litigating States' 
22(pp).
    (g) Important Terms In The Proposed Settlement Are So Loosely 
Defined That They Enable Microsoft To Avoid Disclosure
    The definitions of important terms relevant to interoperability 
are so vague that Microsoft can largely avoid its disclosure 
obligations. Among other things, the proposed settlement's 
definitions of ``Microsoft Middleware'' and ``Windows 
Operating System Product'' give Microsoft the ability to 
completely circumvent even the otherwise paltry disclosure 
requirements. See pp. 36-;40, 42-;43 supra. Just as 
important, the critical term ``interoperability'' is not 
defined in the proposed settlement. It should be defined as the 
ability of a system or product to work with other systems or 
products in such a way as to effectively access, utilize and support 
the full features and functions of one another. See Litigating 
States' 22(q).
    In addition, the definition of ``Windows Operating System 
Product'' provides that ``[t]he software code that 
comprises a Windows Operating System Product shall be determined by 
Microsoft in its sole discretion.'' RPFJ VI.U 
(emphasis supplied). Essentially, this provision grants Microsoft 
the ability to avoid disclosure to competitors of technical 
information--;even that necessary to achieve the government's 
promised ``seamless interoperability''--;merely by 
embedding a middleware product in the Windows PC operating system 
code. Microsoft can then argue that the product at issue is not 
middleware, but rather part of Windows, and thus outside all 
disclosure obligations.
    The definition of ``Microsoft Middleware'' 
demonstrates the intentional nature of the government's concession 
on this point and serves no function other than to dilute the 
effectiveness of the proposed settlement. That definition, which is 
essentially the flip-side of the ``Operating System'' 
coin, also allows Microsoft the flexibility to define whatever it 
wants to as middleware, by either not obtaining a trademark for the 
product or by simply bundling it with the Windows PC operating 
system. RPFJ VI.J. In either instance, the effect is 
the same: Notwithstanding the conclusion of the District Court and 
the Court of Appeals that Microsoft bound middleware to its 
operating system for the purpose of defending its operating system 
monopoly in violation of 2, the company will remain 
free to continue the same conduct.
    ii. The Mandatory Licensing Provisions Are Illusory
    The proposed settlement provides that Microsoft must license to 
its competitors the intellectual property fights for any technical 
information it is required to disclose. The CIS explains that 
``[t]he overarching goal of this section is to ensure that 
Microsoft cannot use its intellectual property fights in such a way 
that undermines the competitive value of its disclosure 
obligations.'' CIS at 49. Limitations on Microsoft's licensing 
obligations, however, make the provision's impact largely illusory. 
Indeed, they may well benefit Microsoft to the exclusion of its 
competitors and competition generally in the PC operating system 
market.
    First, Microsoft is permitted to charge a ``reasonable 
royalty'' to any competitor who requests disclosure related to 
interoperability. RPFJ III.I.1. This provision is 
anticompetitive. On its face, it allows Microsoft to enjoy the 
fruits (i.e., licensing royalties) of its proven illegal monopoly. 
Moreover, it gives Microsoft the opportunity to use a 
``royalty'' charge to control crucial technical 
information in a way that restrains its competitors--;a practice 
Microsoft has already shown a willingness to undertake.\29\ The 
government earlier acknowledged that

[[Page 28608]]

these dangers can be avoided only by requiring any license to be 
royalty-free:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\Under the proposed settlement, there is no practical 
way for competitors who must pay the fee to challenge its 
reasonableness.

    The disclosure of APIs, Communications Interfaces and Technical 
Information required by the Final Judgment will enable third parties 
to make their products interoperate effectively with Windows, 
thereby increasing the value of Windows as a platform ..... There is 
thus no need or justification to charge a royalty for access to the 
same information about interoperation with Microsoft Platform 
Software on a Personal Computer that Microsoft's own developers 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
receive.

Gov't D.Ct. Sum. Resp. at 14.
    The relevant case law also supports the position that royalty-
free licenses are necessary to prospectively remedy Microsoft's 
illegal monopolization of the PC operating system market. See United 
States v. General'' Elec. Co., 115 F. Supp. 835,844 (D.N.J. 
1953) (royalty-free licenses an essential remedy to prevent a 
continuance of monopoly). The government made this same legal point 
when it recognized that the instant case is analogous to United 
States v. Western Elec. Co., 569 F. Supp. 1057, 1082-;1091 
(D.DC 1983), aff'd sub nom. California v. United States, 464 U.S. 
1013 (1983), where compulsory, royalty-free, sublicensable licenses 
were required to remedy past anti-competitive conduct. Gov't D.Ct. 
Reply Memo at 27-;29. As the government pointed out, this 
provision was one of several that insured that 
``telecommunications [would] continue to operate in an 
engineering sense as one national network.'' Id. at 29 
(internal quotation marks omitted). The same functional 
interoperability is necessary to ensure maximum innovation and 
competition in all aspects of the computer industry.
    Moreover, as in the AT&T case, whether royalty-free licenses 
are necessary is not an issue of remedying a monopolist's past 
anticompetitive use of its intellectual property per se, but rather 
a matter of making sure that the relief granted (in this case, 
disclosure of certain APIs and communications protocols) is not 
impeded by onerous license terms. Thus, requiring royalty-free 
licensing is merely in aid of a remedy for antitrust violations that 
are not directly related to Microsoft's licensing of its 
intellectual property.
    The public interest also is not served by giving Microsoft the 
tight to condition the grant of any license of its own software upon 
the licensee's ``cross-licensing'' any intellectual 
property rights it may have ``that are related to the 
licensee's exercise of its tights'' under the settlement. RPFJ 
III.I.5. It was established long ago that cross-license 
requirements are inconsistent with restoring competition to a 
monopolized market:

    [A] provision for reciprocal licensing would tend to perpetuate 
the situation of industry dominance by General Electric which the 
decree is designed to end... Were General Electric granted the right 
of reciprocity, since it would be the overwhelmingly largest source 
from which to demand licenses, once again it would be in a position 
of being able to channel all development through itself. Therefore 
the proposal of General Electric for reciprocal licensing will be 
declined.

General Elec. Co., 115 F. Supp at 847.
    The government's present justification, that this provision is 
necessary to ensure that Microsoft would not be exposed to 
``infringement liability'' as a result of the 
interoperability disclosures, is difficult to understand. CIS at 50. 
No competitor should be forced to disclose its own proprietary 
information in order to exercise rights put in place to restore 
competition in a monopolized market. Again, the government does not 
explain why it was wrong when it earlier concluded that such a 
provision has no pro-competitive benefit:

    There is no justification for requiting third parties to 
disclose to Microsoft the APIs' and Communications Interfaces 
in their products that interoperate with Windows. Microsoft has 
monopoly power in the market for PC operating systems, and third-
party developers of middleware that might challenge that monopoly 
are thus dependent on access to Windows APIs, Communications 
Interfaces and Technical Information. Microsoft has previously 
withheld access to APIs and interfaces to defeat such threats in the 
past, and the restoration of competition requires that it not be 
permitted to do so in the future. No comparable concern has been 
raised in this case about access to information regarding third 
parties' products. In any event, third parties that get access 
to APIs, Communications Interfaces, and Technical Information are 
doing so to create complements to Microsoft's operating system.

Gov't D.Ct. Sum. Resp. at 14-;15.
    In addition, the disclosures required by cross-licensing would 
enable Microsoft to get a jump on developing its own product to 
compete with that which the licensee was forced to disclose. The 
settlement would thereby further increase Microsoft's timing 
advantage over its licensee in selling a new product. Nothing 
requires giving a proven monopolist such a benefit.
    iii. The Limitation Upon Disclosure Based On Alleged Security 
Concerns Is A Massive Loophole
    The provision in the proposed settlement that limits Microsoft's 
interoperability disclosure obligations based on security 
considerations is another loophole that Microsoft can use to justify 
withholding crucial technical information. Under this provision, if 
technical information would ``compromise the security of a 
particular installation or group of installations of anti-piracy, 
anti-virus, software licensing, digital rights management, 
encryption or authentication systems, including without limitation, 
keys, authorization tokens or enforcement criteria,'' it is 
exempt from disclosure. RPFJ III.J.1. In addition, 
Microsoft is also given the right to require that the following 
conditions be met prior to licensing APIs or communications 
protocols related to the foregoing subjects:
    (i) that any licensee never have participated in software 
counterfeiting or piracy, and never have willfully violated 
intellectual property rights;
    (ii) that the licensee have a ``reasonable business 
need'' for the technical information, and the need must be 
related to a product that is currently being planned or shipped;
    (iii) that the licensee meet ``reasonable, objective 
standards established by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity 
and viability of its business''; and
    (iv) that the licensee agree to submit any program using the 
disclosed technical information to a third party, approved by 
Microsoft, to ``ensure verification and compliance with 
Microsoft specifications.'' RPFJ III.J.2.
    The government did not permit any such ``security'' 
exception in its proposals for the Final Judgment. The government 
now attempts to justify this provision as a ``narrow 
exception'' that is necessary to maintain the integrity of the 
security-related features of Windows. CIS at 10. To the contrary, 
the broad language and significant discretion given to Microsoft 
create loopholes for Microsoft to withhold information essential to 
interoperability from disclosure generally or from specific rivals 
it wishes to prejudice.
    First, virtually all APIs, communications interfaces or other 
technical information that are relevant to interoperability, on some 
level will perform ``authentication'' or 
``encryption'' functions related to the security of an 
operating system. Accordingly, the allegedly ``narrow'' 
security exception in reality gives Microsoft a virtual carte 
blanche to withhold information necessary for interoperability, 
simply by citing this section and claiming the code at issue 
provides ``authentication'' or ``encryption'' 
functions.
    The language requiring that a person seeking disclosure must 
meet ``reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft 
for certifying the authenticity and viability of its business'' 
invites abuse by Microsoft. RPFJ III.J.2.c (emphasis 
added). For example, Microsoft could exercise its veto power over a 
disclosure request from an open source developer, on the ground that 
Microsoft does not consider ``its business'' to be 
``authentic'' or ``viable''. The open source 
community typically operates on a not-for-profit basis, and has long 
been a competitive adversary of Microsoft. Rebecca Buckman, 
Microsoft is Suing Linux Start-up Over Lindows Name, Wall Street 
Journal, December 24, 2001 (Microsoft brings trademark action 
against open source operating system developer); Lee Gomes, Linux 
Campaign Is An Uphill Battle For Microsoft, Wall Street Journal, 
June 14, 2001 (``A Microsoft Corp. effort to vilify Linux and 
other open-source software appears to be backfiring ... Microsoft 
Chief Executive Steve Ballmer ... [called] Linux ``a cancer 
that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything 
it touches.''); Byron Acohido, Microsoft Memo to Staff: Clobber 
Linux, USA Today, Jan. 4, 2002 (``Microsoft is escalating its 
war against Linux.'').
    Similarly, the requirement that the prospective licensee have a 
``reasonable business need'' for the information also 
gives Microsoft anticompetitive powers. Microsoft could dispute the 
asserted ``need'' or use to its own competitive advantage 
the information that licensees would presumably submit to it to 
demonstrate their ``need,'' since the provision 
effectively gives

[[Page 28609]]

Microsoft advance notice of its competitors' new products. For 
this reason, the provision will discourage competitors from even 
exercising disclosure rights. Finally, Microsoft is given the 
gratuitous fight to require all competitors' programs that use 
Microsoft's APIs to be verified by a third party, who is 
``approved by Microsoft,'' to ensure compliance with 
``Microsoft's specifications for use of the API or 
interface.'' RPFJ III.J.2.d.
    Microsoft's alleged concern for security is a pretext to create 
a loophole, as well as to allow Microsoft to obtain an unwarranted 
advantage by having early access to its competitors' trade 
secrets, The fact that certain code may provide a security function 
is not a legitimate reason to withhold disclosure. Although 
Microsoft has not been required to license this information in the 
past, its software security record is arguably one of the worst in 
the industry. See, e.g., Wayne Epperson, NT Insurance at a Premium, 
HostingTech (August 2001), at www.hostingtech.com/security/
01_08_nt. (reporting that insurer J.S. Wurzler 
Underwriting Managers had discovered ``that clients who used 
Microsoft Windows NT software in their Internet operations were at a 
greater risk of loss to computer hackers than were the insured Unix 
or Linux users .... After 5 months of analysis, Wurzler Underwriting 
Managers made the decision to charge its NT clients an extra premium 
for insurance coverage.''). On the other hand, several of the 
most effective security programs, such as Kerberos and ``Pretty 
Good Privacy,'' are available on an open-source basis and 
freely accessible by the public. These examples prove that even full 
public disclosure is not inimical to security. What disclosure does 
prevent, however, is the exercise of monopoly power. For purposes of 
this proceeding, therefore, the ``security'' loopholes are 
not in the public interest.
    3. The Proposed Settlement Fails To Remedy The Proven Pattern Of 
Unlawful Retaliation, Inducements, And Exclusive Dealing 
Arrangements Used By Microsoft To Maintain Its Monopoly
    As determined by the District Court in findings upheld by the 
Court of Appeals, Microsoft threatened to and did withhold critical 
technical information from software developers; Microsoft provided 
or withheld financial benefits depending on a party's willingness to 
aid in its anticompetitive campaign; and Microsoft contractually 
prohibited third parties from distributing competing software. CA at 
71-;73, 76-;77. Yet, the proposed settlement fails in many 
respects to protect third parties from new versions of such past 
conduct which may be used by Microsoft to protect its operating 
system monopoly.
    In earlier proceedings, the government recognized that any 
remedy must be ``directed towards future competition and 
innovation,'' and that while the remedy was based on historical 
experience, the analysis was ``done on a forward-looking 
basis.'' See Shapiro Decl. at 2. The government further 
acknowledged that in this fast-moving industry, any remedial conduct 
provisions must ``be broad enough to prevent Microsoft from 
engaging in a number of categories of anticompetitive tactics in the 
future, precisely because the specific tactics that Microsoft might 
employ in the future are hard to predict today in the face of 
changing products and technology.'' Id. (emphasis in original)
    Having recognized these elements as essential to any remedy that 
would serve the public interest, the government now proposes to 
settle on terms that do virtually nothing to anticipate and prohibit 
new forms of exclusion. Indeed, in many instances, the government 
has given up or severely limited provisions in the original Final 
Judgment that were fully justified by the Court of Appeals' 
affirmance. On a number of such issues, the proposed settlement 
accepts positions that Microsoft sought to include in the Final 
Judgment, but the government then specifically rejected. The 
government rejected Microsoft's proposals precisely because they 
``consist[ed] largely of changes that would create loopholes 
and permit Microsoft to continue to engage in anticompetitive 
practices like those found by the Court or otherwise to frustrate or 
undermine the purposes of the Final Judgment.'' Gov't D.Ct. 
Sum. Resp. at 6. However, the recent CIS does not attempt to justify 
the government's acquiescence in what were once viewed as 
``loopholes'' and a license to resume 
``anticompetitive practices.''
    a. The Government's Settlement Substitutes Weak And Narrow 
Protections Of Third Parties For The Strong And Broad Provisions 
Justified By Microsoft's Conduct s
    The Court of Appeals held that Microsoft had engaged in 
exclusionary acts and threats of retaliation in violation of 
2. CA at 73, 77-;78. In its efforts to promote IE 
and restrict the distribution of Navigator, Microsoft successfully 
made threats against Apple. To halt the development of cross-
platform interfaces for Java, Microsoft threatened to retaliate 
against Intel. Microsoft also made threats and retaliated against 
others who posed potential threats to its monopoly. D.Ct. at 
83-;84, 91, 101, 102.
    The government has recognized the established and urgent need to 
prevent Microsoft from engaging in acts or threats of retaliation. 
The original Final Judgment prohibited Microsoft from 
``tak[ing] or threaten[ing] any action [that] adversely 
affect[s] any OEM... based directly or indirectly, in whole or in 
part, on any actual or contemplated action by that OEM to use, 
distribute, promote, license, develop, produce or sell any product 
or service that competes with any Microsoft product or 
service.'' Final Judgment 3(a)(i). The Final 
Judgment further prohibited Microsoft from ``tak[ing] or 
threaten[ing] any action affecting any ISV or IHV... based directly 
or indirectly, in whole or in part, on any actual or contemplated 
action by the ISV or IHV to use, distribute, promote or support any 
Microsoft product or service, or develop, use, distribute, promote, 
or support any software that runs on non-Microsoft Middleware or a 
non-Microsoft Operating System or that competes with any Microsoft 
product or service.'' Final Judgment 213(d)(i) and 
3(d)(ii).
    With respect to OEMs, the government recognized that Microsoft's 
retaliatory actions ``highlight[] the potential for misuse of 
monopoly power that must be prevented if potential rivals to Windows 
and new innovations in software can be expected to emerge.'' 
Gov't D.Ct. Memo at 38. The government specifically admitted that 
the broad anti-retaliation provision was needed ``both to 
prevent subtle or varied forms of coercion and to avoid difficulties 
in determining the scope of the restriction in an enforcement 
proceeding.'' Id. at 38-;39.
    With respect to banning retaliation against ISVs and IHVs, the 
government said it was necessary to ``ensure that Microsoft 
does not use its operating system monopoly to nip new competitive 
threats in the bud.'' Gov't D.Ct. Memo at 41. The provision was 
a ``safeguard to prevent Microsoft's continued use of the wide 
array of opportunities presented by its monopoly position to bribe 
and coerce third parties to favor its own products and exclude 
others.'' Gov't D.Ct. Reply Memo at 55.
    Moreover, because Microsoft repeatedly sought anticompetitive 
agreements, such as its attempted market allocation agreements with 
Netscape and Intel, the Final Judgment included a provision that 
flatly prohibited agreements that limit competition (Final Judgment 
3(h)) ``to ensure that the defendant will be 
unable to repeat its unlawful conduct.'' Gov't D.Ct. Sum. Resp. 
at 17. ``Prohibiting anticompetitive activity that could stifle 
the emergence of other forms of middleware as potential platforms is 
necessary both to prevent recurrence of past misconduct and to 
restore competitive conditions.'' Gov't D.Ct. Reply Memo at 65.
    Even today, the government recognizes the need to prohibit 
retaliation based on the specific findings of illegal conduct upheld 
by the Court of Appeals. In its attempts ``to protect the 
applications barrier to entry, Microsoft embarked on a multifaceted 
campaign to maximize [IE]'s share of usage and to minimize 
Navigator's.'' CIS at 13. Not content to merely develop its own 
browser, ``Microsoft decided to constrict Netscape's access to 
the two distribution channels that led most efficiently to browser 
usage; installation by OEMs on new personal computers and 
distribution by [IAPs].'' Id. ``To ensure that developers 
would not Comments of SBC Communications Inc. view Navigator as 
truly cross-platform middleware,'' Microsoft also pressured 
Apple ``to make Navigator less readily accessible on Apple 
personal computers.'' CIS at 14.
    Additionally, as part of ``its effort to hamper 
distribution of Navigator and to discourage the development of 
software that used non-Microsoft technology, Microsoft also targeted 
[ISVs] by contractually requiring ISVs to use [IE]-specific 
technologies in return for timely and commercially necessary 
technical information about Windows, and precluded important ISVs 
from distributing Navigator with their products.'' CIS at 
14-;15. Ultimately, ``Microsoft's actions succeeded in 
eliminating the threat that the Navigator browser posed to 
Microsoft's operating system monopoly... Navigator lost its ability 
to become the standard software for browsing the Web because 
Microsoft had successfully--;and illegally--;excluded 
Navigator from that status.'' CIS at 15.

[[Page 28610]]

    The proposed settlement (RPFJ III.A,F) fails 
to implement the procompetitive goals that the government has 
repeatedly expressed, and substitutes weak and narrow protections 
for broad prohibitions to interdict new forms of exclusionary 
conduct adopted by Microsoft in response to new forms of 
competition.
    i. The Range Of Parties Protected From ``Retaliation'' 
Is Too Limited
    The settlement would only protect OEMs, ISVs and IHVs against 
``retaliation.'' Microsoft's record of retaliatory 
conduct, however, demonstrates that the ban against retaliation must 
apply to all third parties.\30\ Microsoft has demonstrated that it 
will take any action necessary against any entity that poses a 
threat to its monopoly, by making threats, offering inducements, 
coercing or contractually restricting others. The government offers 
no justification whatever, let alone any persuasive reason, to limit 
the types of third-parties against which Microsoft cannot engage in 
unlawful retaliation. The settlement's failure to ban retaliation 
broadly is all the more troubling because this provision does not 
impose any affirmative duties on Microsoft. The only 
``burden'' is that Microsoft must refrain from punishing 
those who might challenge Microsoft's illegal monopoly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\The listing of categories of protected parties, 
instead of applying the ban to all third parties, also presents a 
significant risk of omitting some competitors (e.g., SBC and Sun 
Microsystems) from the decree's protection because their businesses 
do not fit neatly into any standard category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ii. ``Retaliation'' Is Not Defined
    The proposed settlement states that Microsoft ``shall not 
retaliate,'' but never defines ``retaliation.'' 
Although the government stated that its intention was to 
``prevent subtle or varied forms of coercion and to avoid 
difficulties in determining the scope of the restriction in an 
enforcement proceeding'' (Gov't D.Ct. Memo at 38-;39), the 
vague language of the settlement fails to meet that goal. Without a 
definition of ``retaliate,'' such as a prohibition against 
``taking or threatening adverse actions'' (see Final 
Judgment 3(a)(i), 3(d)), Microsoft will be free 
to argue that no violation has been established on a particular set 
of facts. Given the extraordinary record of Microsoft's ingenuity in 
abusing its monopoly power, any definitional doubt must be resolved 
against the wrongdoer by imposing a broad definition of 
``retaliate.''
    Moreover, with respect to OEMs, Microsoft is only prohibited 
from ``retaliating against an OEM by altering Microsoft's 
commercial relations with that OEM or by withholding newly 
introduced forms of non-monetary Consideration.'' See RPFJ 
III.A (emphasis added). The use of the words 
``newly introduced'' is ambiguous in that it suggests that 
Microsoft is permitted to withhold existing forms of non-monetary 
compensation. The CIS offers no explanation for this ambiguity 
concerning whether Microsoft may continue to engage in conduct 
previously adjudged illegal. CIS at 25-;26.
    iii.The Party Injured By Retaliation Must Prove Causation
    The proposed settlement too narrowly limits the type of conduct 
by third parties for which Microsoft may not 
``retaliate.'' It only prohibits ``retaliation'' 
that occurs ``because'' of conduct by the OEM, ISV or IHV. 
By imposing a causation requirement on the injured party, the 
government again gives a proven wrongdoer the benefit of a doubt to 
which it is not entitled. The prior Final Judgment struck the 
correct balance by prohibiting any adverse action by Microsoft based 
directly or indirectly on any actual or contemplated action by the 
protected party. Final Judgment 3(a)(i), 3(d); 
see also Litigating States' 8.
    iv. Retaliation Not Involving Windows Or Middleware Is Allowed
    The proposed settlement's ban on ``retaliation'' 
currently only applies to a protected party where it is developing, 
distributing, promoting or using products that compete with 
Microsoft Platform Software or middleware.\31\ Given the multitude 
of ways in which new threats can (and did) develop to contest the 
Windows operating system, the ban on retaliation will not be truly 
effective unless it protects any action or contemplated action 
involving products or services that compete with any Microsoft 
products or services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\Microsoft Platform Software is defined as Microsoft 
Middleware and the Windows Operating System. The limitations of 
those defined terms which, among other things, exclude applications 
(including applications on Internet-based servers that would 
threaten the Windows monopoly), render the ``retaliation'' 
ban far too narrow. See pp. 36-;40, 42-;43 infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    v. Loopholes Vitiate Even The Existing Limitations
    The settlement contains broad savings clauses and exceptions 
that give Microsoft loopholes for abuse and are not justified by the 
Court of Appeals' findings. The OEM retaliation provision permits 
Microsoft to provide ``Consideration'' to any OEM with 
respect to any Microsoft product or service if the 
``Consideration is commensurate with the absolute level or 
amount of that OEM's development, distribution, promotion, or 
licensing of that Microsoft product or service.'' RPFJ 
III.A. Similarly, Microsoft may enter agreements with 
ISVs limiting their ability to develop, promote or distribute 
competing software, if the limitations are ``reasonably 
necessary to and of reasonable scope and duration in relation to a 
bona fide contractual obligation of the ISV to use, distribute or 
promote any Microsoft software or develop software for, or in 
conjunction with, Microsoft.'' RPFJ HI F.2.
    These vague provisions are an invitation for abuse. Microsoft 
has repeatedly used these very practices to maintain an illegal 
monopoly for over a decade. Under these circumstances, a broad 
prohibition that puts the burden entirely on Microsoft to prove the 
bona fides of any ``consideration'' or exclusivity is not 
only appropriate, but essential to revive competition.
    vi. Unnecessary And Ambiguous Savings Clauses Undermine The 
Decree
    The retaliation provisions also include broad savings clauses 
that provide that nothing in the provisions ``prohibit 
Microsoft from enforcing any provision of any agreement with any 
[OEM, ISV or IHV] or any intellectual property right, that is not 
inconsistent'' with the settlement. RPFJ 
III. A and III. F. 3. Given the ambiguities in 
the settlement, this loophole, too, will invite aggressive 
interpretation by Microsoft, and further litigation.
    vii. There Is No Prohibition On Agreements Limiting Competition
    The provision in the Final Judgment banning agreements to limit 
competition (Section 3(h)) has been completely eliminated, leaving 
Microsoft free to seek to enter market allocation agreements such as 
the ones it proposed to enter with Netscape and Intel. D.Ct. at 
83-;84, 97, 101. The proposed settlement 
(III.G) only prohibits Microsoft from entering into 
agreements with certain entities to use or distribute Microsoft 
Platform Software exclusively or in fixed percentages. There is no 
provision that limits Microsoft's ability to enter into agreements 
with competitors providing that they refrain from developing or 
distributing products that compete with the Windows operating system 
or a Microsoft middleware product. This CIS does not explain this 
glaring omission.
    viii. There Is No Protection Against Retaliation For 
Participating In This Lawsuit
    Nothing in the proposed settlement protects individuals or 
entities from retaliation by Microsoft for participating or 
cooperating in this litigation. In a letter to the Senate Judiciary 
Committee, former Solicitor General Robert H. Bork expressed the 
realistic concern that ``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 [government's] proposed 
meaningless remedy would insure that no witness would ever testify 
against Microsoft in any future enforcement action.'' See 
Letter from Robert H. Bork to Senate Judiciary Committee of 12/11/
01, at 4. Again, the CIS does not address this issue of obvious 
concern, given Microsoft's track record of anticompetitive abuse.
    b. The Proposed Uniform Licensing To OEMs Is Insufficient
    The District Court made findings of fact, which were not 
questioned by the Court of Appeals, that provide examples of 
incentives and threats used by Microsoft to induce OEMs to promote 
IE and not pre-install or promote Navigator. Thus, Microsoft gave 
reductions in price to OEMs who set IE as the default browser on 
their PC systems; Microsoft gave further reductions to OEMs who 
displayed IE logos and links on their home page; and Microsoft gave 
OEMs millions of dollars in co-marketing funds in exchange for 
carrying out other promotional activities for IE. D.Ct. at 
231.
    The original Final Judgment contained a strong ban on 
discriminatory license terms. It compelled Microsoft to license 
Windows to all covered OEMs on uniform terms and prohibited 
Microsoft from offering market development allowances or discounts. 
Final Judgment 3(a)(ii). Microsoft was further required 
to give OEMs equal access to, inter alia, licensing terms, 
discounts, technical and marketing support and product and technical 
information; and to give written notice and an opportunity to cure 
before terminating an OEM's license. Id.

[[Page 28611]]

    The government recognized the necessity for this provision 
requiring ``transparent and uniform pricing to the largest 
OEMs... so that Microsoft cannot retaliate against an OEM for 
supporting non-Microsoft software.'' Gov't D.Ct. Memo at 39. 
Uniform terms and pricing were also seen as necessary to 
``terminate[] Microsoft's practice of charging substantially 
different prices for Windows licenses to reward cooperative OEMs, 
effected in part by its market development allowances, and will thus 
make it easier for OEMs to promote non-Microsoft products in 
response to consumer demand.'' Id. The government found that 
this uniformity was ``necessary to prevent Microsoft from 
employing the myriad forms of coercion and reward that'' have 
been held to injure competition. Gov't D.Ct. Reply Memo at 
43-;44. ``Such coercion is difficult to detect, and the 
mere threat of its use may be sufficient to accomplish the desired, 
anticompetitive result.'' Id. at 44.
    In the context of the present settlement, the government 
continues to define as a ``critical'' objective ensuring 
that OEMs are truly ``free to choose to distribute and promote 
middleware without interference from Microsoft.'' CIS at 25. It 
recognizes that Windows'' license royalties and terms are 
``inherently complex and easy for Microsoft to use to affect 
OEMs'' behavior, including what software the OEMs will offer to 
their customers.'' CIS at 28. By purportedly requiring uniform 
licensing, the govemment says that the proposed settlement 
eliminates ``any opportunity for Microsoft to set a particular 
OEM's royalty or license terms as a way of inducing that OEM to 
decline to promote non-Microsoft software or retaliating against 
that OEM for its choices to promote non-Microsoft software.'' 
CIS at 28. The government's stated goal is ensuring ``that OEMs 
can make their own independent choices.'' CIS at 28.
    Here, as in many other respects, the proposed settlement fails 
to fulfill the government's stated objectives.
    i. Allowing ``Market Development Allowances'' Invites 
Evasion
    Unlike the Final Judgment (3(a)(ii)), which 
prohibited market development allowances (``MDAs'') 
outright, the proposed settlement would permit MDAs (RPFJ 
III.3.B3), if certain restrictions are met, despite the 
fact that MDAs have been repeatedly used by Microsoft to induce OEMs 
to take actions that protect Microsoft's monopoly. As the government 
earlier acknowledged, making any MDAs permissible creates a loophole 
that will allow the very discrimination against OEMs that the 
provision is intended to prevent. See Gov't D.Ct. Sum. Resp. at 10 
(the use of undefined and unbounded ``objective'' pricing 
criteria will permit Microsoft to reward or punish OEMs by charging 
them different prices).
    ii. Microsoft Is Allowed To Keep License Terms Secret
    The proposed settlement does not require that Microsoft provide 
equal access to licensing terms, discounts, technical support, etc. 
Without this information, OEMs cannot fairly negotiate license 
terms. In the current market, Microsoft offers significant discounts 
to OEMs that take the entire Windows package; those discounts enable 
the OEMs to be competitive with other PC manufacturers. However, if 
an OEM tries to negotiate anything out of the package, Microsoft 
significantly increases the price, making the OEM non-competitive. 
OEMs do not know what terms are negotiable and are afraid to 
negotiate aggressively out of fear they will be punished by 
Microsoft.
    For this reason, when Microsoft previously requested deletion of 
the equal access provision, the government rejected the idea because 
it ``would allow [Microsoft] to reward or punish Covered OEMs 
with different Windows prices and non-price licensing terms and 
conditions and thus to evade the purpose of the Final 
Judgment.'' See Gov't D.Ct. Sum. Resp. at 10. Moreover, the 
government's view then was that ``the burden should not be on 
OEMs to know of and affirmatively seek out equal treatment; 
Microsoft could take advantage of a Covered OEM's ignorance of what 
has been provided to other Covered OEMs to reward or punish that OEM 
and thus to evade the purposes of the Final Judgment.'' Id. at 
10-;11. The government provides no satisfactory rationale for 
changing that view.
    iii. There Is No Independent Verification Of 
``Volume'' Discounts
    The proposed settlement allows Microsoft to provide reasonable 
volume discounts based upon the actual volume of licenses. (RPFJ 
III.B.2) Unless the provision requires that the volume 
discounts be based on the independently determined actual number of 
shipments, however, Microsoft will continue to have the power that 
it exercised in the past to manipulate discounts.
    iv. License Terminations Without Cause Are Allowed
    The proposed settlement creates an unnecessary exception to the 
written notice requirement for termination of OEM licenses. It 
provides that Microsoft need not provide notice or opportunity to 
cure if Microsoft has given two prior written notices. This 
exception invites Microsoft to abuse the notice provision and then 
arbitrarily revoke an OEM's license. Moreover, Microsoft is not even 
required to show ``good cause'' for termination. Again, 
the government provides no rationale why a proven monopolist should 
be given any such advantages.
    c. The Proposed Settlement Fails To Address Exclusive Dealing 
Adequately
    The Court of Appeals held that Microsoft's exclusive contracts 
with IAPs are exclusionary devices in violation of 2. 
CA at 71. By ensuring that the vast majority of IAP subscribers were 
offered IE as their default browser or as the only browser, 
Microsoft's deals with IAPs had a significant effect in maintaining 
its monopoly by keeping usage of Navigator below the critical level 
necessary for it or any other rival to threaten Microsoft's 
monopoly. CA at 71.
    In addition to the evidence specifically relied on by the Court 
of Appeals, the District Court made findings, not reversed, of other 
unlawful exclusive agreements. For example, in exchange for an 
agreement by IAPs to promote and distribute IE preferentially over 
Navigator and to convert existing subscribers from Navigator to IE, 
Microsoft gave fourteen IAPs placement in its Windows Referral 
Server. D.Ct. at 255,256. Microsoft also entered into 
agreements with AT&T, WorldNet, Prodigy and CompuServe limiting 
their ability to promote non-Microsoft browsers. D.Ct. at 305.
    The Court of Appeals also held that Microsoft's illegal 
agreements with ISVs further foreclosed rival browsers from the 
market. CA at 72, 76. Microsoft entered dozens of ``First 
Wave'' agreements with ISVs, promising to give them 
preferential support in using Windows in exchange for ISVs agreeing 
to use IE as the default browser in any software they developed. The 
``First Wave'' agreements with ISVs also required the ISVs 
to use Microsoft's JVM rather than Sun's JVM. This directly 
protected Microsoft's monopoly from the middleware threat. CA at 76.
    To redress these exclusionary agreements, the government, 
earlier in this case, advocated a general and broad prohibition 
against any and all manner of exclusive dealing by Microsoft. In the 
Final Judgment, Microsoft was generally prohibited from offering a 
third party any consideration in exchange for that party's agreement 
to restrict development, production, distribution, promotion or use 
of, or payment for, any non-Microsoft Platform Software; 
distributing, promoting or using any Microsoft Platform Software 
exclusively; degrading the performance of any non-Microsoft Platform 
Software; and with respect to IAPs or ICPs, distributing, promoting 
or using Microsoft software in exchange for placement with respect 
to any aspect of a Windows Operating System. Final Judgment 
3(e).
    The government recognized that such a ban was necessary because 
Microsoft had ``coerced and bribed'' third parties into 
becoming, willingly or unwillingly, participants in strengthening 
the applications barrier to entry. Gov't D.Ct. Memo at 41. The 
government stated that to prevent recurrence, Microsoft had to be 
barred from any exclusive dealing or percentage contracts that 
require a third party to limit its dealings in, or to degrade the 
performance of, non-Microsoft products, to deal solely in Microsoft 
software, or, in the case of IAPs or ICPs, to exchange promotion of 
Microsoft products for placement in the Windows operating system. 
Id. Significantly, the government advocated a general ban because 
Microsoft had dealings with a wide range of companies and because 
``it is difficult to predict precisely which trading partners 
Microsoft might otherwise seek to tie up under exclusive 
arrangements in the next several years.'' Shapiro Decl. at 19. 
Only a general ban on exclusionary contracts would ``serve to 
lower entry barriers more effectively than would more limited 
provisions directed at specific categories of trading 
partners.'' Id.
    In the CIS, the government continues to recognize the necessity 
of preventing ``Microsoft from using either money or the wide 
range of commercial blandishments at its disposal.., to hinder the 
development and adoption of products that, over time, could emerge 
as potential platform threats to the Windows monopoly.'' CIS at 
42. However, the exclusive dealing provision in the proposed 
settlement (RPFJ III. G) fails to

[[Page 28612]]

meet the goals that the government recognizes are essential. Nor 
will it prevent Microsoft from engaging in the same types of conduct 
that were found to be unlawful.
    i. The Exclusive Dealing Prohibition Is Limited To Identified 
Parties Only
    The provision is limited to the listed entities (IAP, ICP, ISV, 
IHV or OEM), but should be extended to all third parties. The 
government has specifically acknowledged that a ``general 
ban'' is necessary precisely because it is too difficult to 
predict which entities Microsoft might seek to tie up under 
exclusive arrangements in the next several years. Only a general ban 
may effectively lower entry barriers, as compared to ``more 
limited provisions directed at specific categories of trading 
partners.'' Shapiro Decl. at 19.
    ii. Paying Third Parties To Refrain From Using Non-Microsoft 
Products Is Allowed
    The proposed settlement only prohibits Microsoft from entering 
into agreements with certain third parties that grant consideration 
on the condition that the entity ``distributes, promotes, uses, 
or supports, exclusively or in a fixed percentage, any Microsoft 
Platform Software.'' RPFJ III.G.1. The Final 
Judgment prohibited Microsoft from entering into an agreement with 
any third party that grants consideration to ``distribute, 
promote or use any Microsoft Platform Software exclusively'' 
(Final Judgment 3(e)(ii) and ``to restrict its 
development, production, distribution, promotion or use of, or 
payment for, any non- Microsoft Platform Software'' (Final 
Judgment 3(e)(i)). Microsoft attempted to delete the 
provision that prohibited agreements with a third party to restrict 
the development, production, distribution, promotion or use of non-
Microsoft Platform software, but the government rejected the 
proposal. See Microsoft D.Ct. Com. at 12.
    The proposed settlement does not prohibit Microsoft from 
granting consideration to a party that agrees to refrain from using 
or distributing products or services that compete with 
Microsoft.\321\ RPFJ III.G.1. Microsoft would thus be 
allowed to grant consideration (in the form of money, technical 
information or support, or otherwise) in exchange for the party's 
agreement not to use or distribute a competing product. Such an 
agreement would be the functional equivalent of the ``First 
Wave'' agreements with ISVs found to be illegally exclusionary 
by the Court of Appeals. The CIS does not articulate a satisfactory 
basis for omitting from the settlement a prohibition on the types of 
actions that were adjudged illegal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\The proposed settlement does purport to limit 
Microsoft's ability to enter into agreements with ISVs which require 
the ISV to refrain from ``developing, using, distributing, or 
promoting any software that competes with Microsoft Platform 
Software.'' RPFJ III.F.2. However, as discussed 
supra at pp. 97-;98, that same section creates an exception 
that permits such agreements with ISVs if they are in relation 
``to a bona fide contractual obligation of the ISV.'' 
Therefore, even as to ISVs, the restriction is rendered potentially 
meaningless.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    iii. Microsoft Can Pay Others To Distribute Its Monopoly 
Software
    Under the proposed settlement, Microsoft is permitted to enter 
into agreements with IAPs and ICPs that condition their placement in 
Windows on their agreement to distribute or promote Microsoft 
Platform Software. RPFJ III.G.2. When Microsoft argued 
against this provision in the original Final Judgment, the 
government rejected its proposal because phrasing it the way 
Microsoft proposed (and as it is now phrased in the proposed 
settlement) would allow Microsoft to achieve the same 
anticompetitive purpose, by simply amending its agreements to 
require distribution of Micr0s0ft's browser instead of limiting 
distrution of competing browsers. See Gov't D.Ct. Sum. Resp. at 16; 
Microsoft D.Ct. Com. at 12. The government has not explained why it 
has now completely reversed its position.
    iv. The Exclusive Dealing Provision Is Riddled With Loopholes
    The various exceptions built into the exclusive dealing ban 
render it potentially meaningless. While purportedly prohibiting 
exclusive or fixed percentage arrangements, such agreements are 
actually permitted when Microsoft: obtains a representation that it 
is ``commercially practicable'' for the entity to provide 
equal or greater distribution of a competing product; if Microsoft 
enters into any type of loosely defined ``joint venture'' 
agreement; or if Microsoft licenses in intellectual property from a 
third party. (RPFJ III.G). When Microsoft proposed to 
include a similar joint venture exception in a related provision of 
the Final Judgment (Final Judgment 3(h), Ban on 
Agreements Limiting Competition), the government rejected the 
proposal as ``unnecessary'' and because it ``would 
enable Microsoft to enter into anticompetitive market division 
agreements regarding such products by labeling them, as it attempted 
to label at trial the June 1995 Netscape meeting, ``joint 
development agreements'' or ``agreements ancillary to 
lawful joint ventures.'' Gov't D.Ct. Sum. Resp. at 18. Once 
again, the government has agreed to a loophole that can only benefit 
Microsoft by inviting abuse and further litigation.
    4. The Term of the Settlement Is Too Short, Even If Its 
Deficiencies Were Corrected
    As demonstrated above, without correction of numerous 
deficiencies, the proposed settlement will not restore competitive 
conditions because it largely permits Microsoft to conduct business 
as usual and it effectively rubberstamps further anticompetitive 
conduct. Even if all of the other deficiencies were corrected, 
however, the term of the proposed settlement is too short to restore 
meaningful competition with the Windows monopoly. Although this 
Court's finding that Microsoft illegally maintained its decade-long 
monopoly has now been affirmed by the Court of Appeals, Microsoft 
has availed itself--;up to and including the present--;of 
every opportunity to maintain and extend its monopoly through 
anticompetitive actions. For example, Windows XP, designed during 
the height of Microsoft's litigation with the government and 
released just before the settlement was announced, commingles code 
in the exact manner found unlawful by the Court of Appeals.
    The government now claims that a five-year decree will be 
sufficient to restore competition. CIS at 60. This assertion is 
inconsistent with the Department of Justice's own Antitrust Manual, 
which states that ``the Division's standard decree language 
requires that the consent decree expire on the tenth anniversary of 
its entry by the court. [T]he staff should not negotiate any decree 
of less than 10 years' duration, although decrees of longer than 10 
years may be appropriate in certain circumstances.'' Department 
of Justice, Antitrust Division Manual, ch. IV at 54 (3d ed. 1998) 
(emphasis added). As the government argued in earlier urging entry 
of a ten-year decree:

    Ten years is customary in antitrust cases and in any event four 
years is too short a time for the Final Judgment to remain in 
effect. Despite [Microsoft's] assertion that ``[t]en years is 
an extraordinarily long time in the software industry,'' 
Microsoft has had the dominant position in the operating-systems 
business for at least a decade (see Findings (35), and under 
the circumstances there is no sound justification for entering a 
decree of shorter duration.

Gov't D.Ct. Sum. Resp. at 20 (emphasis added).
    The government offers no ``sound justification'' for 
its acceptance of a settlement that would last only five years. RPFJ 
V.A. The CIS only states that 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.'' CIS at 60. There is no factual support cited for 
the ipse dixit that this is ``sufficient time,'' while it 
is certain that the standard ten-year decree would restore 
competition to a greater extent. The government's present position 
also conflicts with other assertions that it previously made in this 
case. See Gov't D.Ct. Memo at 27 (``Looking forward, the Court 
must anticipate that Microsoft, unless restrained by appropriate 
equitable relief, likely will continue to perpetuate its monopoly by 
the same anticompetitive methods revealed at trial, although 
directed at whatever new competitive threat arises.'').
    Moreover, the government's only recourse under the proposed 
settlement--;the possibility that the proposed decree could be 
extended ``one time'' for a ``maximum of two 
years''--;is so short as to be virtually meaningless. RPFJ 
V.B. And, even to obtain the ``one-time'' two 
year extension, the government would first have to demonstrate 
through a complex, lengthy and burdensome enforcement procedure, 
that Microsoft engaged in ``a pattern of willful and systematic 
violations'' of the decree. Id. The government should be 
seeking--;as it originally sought--;more than just conduct 
remedies ``tak[ing] effect.'' CIS at 60. It should instead 
be trying to ensure that, once the remedies ``take 
effect,'' they remain in effect for a period sufficient to 
restore competition to the greatest extent possible. As the 
government told the District Court, ``[t]en years is customary 
in antitrust cases and in any event fore' years is too short.'' 
Gov't D.Ct. Sum. Resp. at 20. There is nothing in the Court of 
Appeals' decision that justifies the government's decision to depart 
from its own formal policy.

[[Page 28613]]

    As a matter of law, the government's previously stated position 
was correct. The case law demonstrates that in cases where a 
monopolist has committed a Section 2 violation, it has been 
``customary'' for courts to impose remedial decrees 
lasting ten years. In over 70 cases since the Department of 
Justice's Antitrust Manual was adopted in 1978 to change the prior 
policy of seeking decrees of unlimited length, the government has 
required consent decrees having a minimum ten year duration. See 
e.g., United States v. Greyhound, Civ. No. 95-;1852 (RCL), 1996 
WL 179570 (D.DC Feb. 27, 1996) (bus companies); United States v. 
Playmobil USA, Inc., Civ. No. 95-;0214, 1995 WL 366524 (D.DC 
May 22, 1995) (toy companies); United States v. Republic Services, 
Inc., Civ No. 00-;2311, 2001 WL 77103 (D.DC Jan. 18, 2001) 
(waste collection companies). \33\ The government also imposed 
restrictions on broadcasters'' purchase of television program 
rights for a period of 15 years. See United States v. American 
Broadcasting Co., Inc., Civ. No. 74-;3600 (RJK), 1980 WL 2013 
(C.D. Cal. Nov. 14 1980).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\Based on a review of the published cases, every 
consent decree that the government has entered in a Section 2 case 
since 1978 has been ten years or longer in duration, with the 
exception of the first Microsoft decree. That decree was not entered 
after a full trial on the merits and a finding of unlawful monopoly 
maintenance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In contrast to these settlements, the proposed decree here is to 
last only five years, although this case has significantly more 
importance to the national economy. In addition, Microsoft's prior 
conduct, the importance of this case to the national economy, and 
the explicit findings, upheld on appeal, of Microsoft's illegal 
monopolization activities mandate, if anything, that Microsoft's 
conduct be supervised for a period longer than the standard ten-year 
term.
    At bottom, a five-year injunction is too short to allow 
meaningful competition to develop in the operating system market. It 
has been over ten years since the government first began to 
investigate Microsoft's practices, and it took six years from 
Microsoft's first anticompetitive act cited by the District Court 
for this case to reach the appellate level. The effects of 
Microsoft's past and present anticompetitive actions, which have 
already continued for over a decade, will likely last much longer. 
The government itself concedes that Netscape and Java are likely 
dead and no longer pose credible threats to Microsoft's operating 
system monopoly. CIS as 16-;17. Even if the proposed decree's 
numerous loopholes were plugged, it will take considerably longer 
than five years for strong new competitors to emerge. Most 
important, the ability of those competitors to become viable depends 
upon the existence of judicial protection. See United States v. GTE 
Corp., 603 F. Supp. 730, 742-;43 (D.DC 1984) (rejecting as too 
short five-year expiration date for decree provisions in section 2 
case).
    5. The Proposed Settlement Nullifies Effective Enforcement
    The government claims that the various obligations imposed upon 
Microsoft in the proposed settlement are supported by ``strong 
enforcement provisions,'' ``including the power to seek 
criminal and civil contempt sanctions and other relief in the event 
of a violation.'' CIS at 5. It also states that Plaintiffs' 
right, under certain circumstances, to request a one-time extension 
of the final judgment of an additional two years ``is designed 
to supplement the government's traditional authority to bring 
contempt actions.'' CIS at 60.
    The reality, however, is to the contrary. The compliance and 
enforcement provisions in the proposed settlement are entirely 
inadequate to prevent Microsoft from engaging in future 
anticompetitive conduct. The provisions in the proposed settlement 
will result in time delays, inefficient administration of the 
decree, and ultimately give Microsoft the opportunity to continue 
its anticompetitive acts unabated. The most critical deficiencies 
include:
    a. The Technical Committee Proposal Is Misguided
    By agreeing that a ``Technical Committee'' comprised 
of computer programming and software experts should perform a 
monitoring role (RPFJ IV.B.1 and IV.B.2), the 
government seemingly recognizes the difficulty of monitoring and 
enforcing Microsoft's compliance with the decree. The government 
also appears to recognize the obvious--;that ``Internal 
Antitrust Compliance'' by Microsoft, though necessary, is 
insufficient. Unfortunately, the government fails to recognize that 
its own concessions make the compliance task vastly more difficult.
    The Technical Committee contemplated by the settlement is simply 
not an adequate answer, much less a substitute for self-enforcing 
prohibitions, The person charged with responsibility for monitoring 
and enforcing Microsoft's compliance must be an experienced 
antitrust lawyer or former federal judge. He or she can then hire 
software and programming experts to render assistance, but the 
responsibility for determining whether the specific provisions of a 
complex court order have been violated must be made by an individual 
with impeccable legal credentials and long experience in antitrust 
law and decree interpretation. No novel device such as a 
``Technical Committee'' is required. The mechanism of a 
special master under Rule 53, Fed. R.Civ.P., is readily available 
and entirely appropriate. See United States v. Microsoft Corp., 147 
F.3d 935,954 (DC Cir. 1998) (recognizing ``well-established 
tradition allowing use of special masters to oversee 
compliance'').
    Aside from its dual, repetitive investigative and reporting 
procedures (Technical Committee to the government, then the 
government to the Court, see pp. 114-;115 infra.) (RFFJ 
III.D.4), the proposed settlement is flawed because it 
imposes substantial constraints upon how the Technical Committee's 
findings may be used to assure compliance. The settlement prohibits 
the admission into evidence of the Technical Committee's findings 
``in any enforcement proceeding before the Court for any 
purpose;'' and prohibits any technical committee member from 
testifying in any proceeding or before any tribunal regarding any 
matter relating to the Final Judgment. RPFJ IV.D.4.d. 
Each of those prohibitions denies the Court information from the 
independent technical personnel who are uniquely knowledgeable about 
the nature of the violation. Indeed, although the decree proposal 
allows Microsoft to offer any evidence it wants, it shuts off from 
the Court the evidence in the possession of the technical committee 
members who rejected Microsoft's explanations.
    b. All Relevant Employees Should Be Required To Be Trained In 
The Decree, But Are Not
    The proposed settlement only requires that the officers and 
directors of Microsoft receive copies of the decree and be 
``annually briefed on [its] meaning.'' RPFJ 
IV.C.3. In order to be effective, however, all managers 
(not just corporate ``officers'') and all employees who 
have positions that enable them to initiate or implement 
anticompetitive conduct must be required to read, understand and 
comply with the decree. Of the published consent decrees that 
require employees of the company to certify that they have read, 
understood, and will comply with the decree, most extend compliance 
certification beyond officers and directors of the company, to also 
include other managers and employees who have responsibility for 
overseeing the business activities of the antitrust violator. See, 
e.g., United States v. Western Elec., Civ. No. 82-;0192 (HHG), 
1991 WL 33559, at *5 (D.DC Feb. 15, 1991) (requiring certification 
of compliance from each officer and management employee); United 
States v. Delta Dental of R.I., Civ. No. Civ. A. 96-;113P, 1997 
WL 527669, at *2 (D.R.I. July 2, 1997) (requiring certification of 
compliance from all officers, directors, and employees who had 
responsibility for approving, disapproving, monitoring, 
recommending, or implementing any provisions in agreements with 
participating dentists); United States v. Business Inv. & Dev. 
Corp., No. MO-81-CA-20, 1982 WL 1866, at *2 (W.D. Tx. July 16, 1982) 
(requiring certification of compliance from all officers, directors, 
employees and franchisees).
    Moreover, the Chairman, CE0 or other responsible senior officer 
of Microsoft should be required to certify periodically to the Court 
that Microsoft is in compliance with its obligations. The record 
evidence that Microsoft's highest officials were not only aware of, 
but actively encouraged, initiated or directed Microsoft's 
anticompetitive practices, see, e.g., CA at 73, 77; D.Ct. at 
80-;87, 100, 108, 112-;13,124-;29, 
340-;349, 396, 406-;07, makes it all the more necessary to 
include such certification provisions to ensure that Microsoft takes 
seriously its responsibilities under any decree to abide by the 
antitrust laws.
    c. The Proposed ``Dispute Resolution'' Mechanism 
Encourages Delay
    Because of the extraordinarily rapid pace of technological and 
business developments in the computer industry, avoiding delays in 
compliance is a critical element in effectively eliminating 
Microsoft's unlawful behavior and restoring competition. Whether the 
monitoring function is performed by a Technical Committee or Special 
Master, the monitor should simultaneously report to both

[[Page 28614]]

the Court and the Plaintiffs. In defending its decisions to make 
numerous substantive concessions to Microsoft during the settlement 
process, the government has cited the substantial time it might take 
to litigate this case to conclusion if it held out for stronger 
relief than Microsoft would accept. CIS at 61. Those same time 
considerations militate against the time-consuming enforcement 
process contained in the proposed settlement.
    The proposed decree contemplates an elaborate procedure whereby 
the Technical Committee, after receiving a complaint about 
Microsoft's conduct, would be required to meet with Microsoft's 
internal compliance officer, and allow Microsoft to respond to the 
complaint, before it determines whether the complaint can be 
resolved informally. RPFJ III.D.4.b. There are no time 
limits on most of these procedures. If, after completing that 
procedure, the Technical Committee believes the dispute cannot be 
resolved and that Microsoft's conduct violated the decree, the 
Technical Committee would then report the violation to the 
government in the first instance. RPFJ III.D.4.c. It 
then would be up to the government, in turn, to evaluate Microsoft's 
conduct and determine whether the violation should be reported to 
the Court.
    This process guarantees that considerable time will lapse 
between a violation of the decree by Microsoft and the Court's 
eventual review of the problem. First, the process for 
``Voluntary Dispute Resolution'' contemplated by the 
proposed decree will substantially delay, and, in some 
circumstances, entirely eliminate, the reporting of violations to 
the Court. However, effective enforcement requires that any 
violation of the decree should be reported by the Technical 
Committee or Special Master immediately and directly to the Court. 
Action by Microsoft to ``voluntarily'' cease the unlawful 
conduct may then, along with other factors, be considered by the 
Court in determining the severity of any sanction imposed.
    in sum, for any remedy to be effective in this case, it must be 
imposed quickly--;not after months or years of further 
``dispute resolution.'' Under the enforcement scheme 
contemplated by the proposed settlement, however, that simply cannot 
happen.
    IV. DEFICIENCIES IN THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT CREATE SIGNIFICANT 
RISKS FOR SBC'S COMMUNICATIONS AND DATA BUSINESSES, INCLUDING SBC'S 
INTERNET-RELATED BUSINESSES, WHICH DEPEND UPON OPEN ARCHITECTURE AND 
COMPETITIVE ALTERNATIVES
    SBC is one of the world's leading businesses in the provision of 
data and voice communications and Internet access. SBC's affiliates 
serve nearly 60 million telephone access lines nationwide and 21 
million wireless customers. SBC and its affiliates are major 
providers of DSL high-speed and dial-up Internet service, voice 
messaging services, and if directory advertising and publishing 
products. SBC, through its affiliates, has committed substantial 
resources to the development of a host of computer- and Internet-
related businesses. These businesses are designed to provide 
consumers with flexibility, convenience and, most importantly, more 
choice.
    With these initiatives, together with its expanding telephone, 
wireless and Internet operations, SBC is prepared to compete 
vigorously during the coming decade as the ``convergence'' 
of communications and computing technologies continues to 
accelerate. That highly competitive environment, however, is 
threatened by Microsoft's ability--;unless restrained by a 
strong and effective decree in this case--;to use its Windows 
operating system monopoly to control the electronic 
``gateways'' that link the Internet and its myriad service 
and content providers to consumers' homes and offices. That control 
of the gateways, in turn, will enable Microsoft to entrench the 
Windows monopoly even more firmly.
    A. How SBC Competes, Or Will Compete, With Microsoft
    SBC currently has, or is developing, several businesses in 
competition with Microsoft, which, together with other similar 
businesses, directly or indirectly, threaten or are threatened by 
the Windows operating system monopoly.
    1. Telephone, Cellular And Internet Services
    SBC affiliates Southwestern Bell, Ameritech, Pacific Bell, 
Nevada Bell, and SNET are the Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers that 
provide telephone service in thirteen states.\34\ In addition, SBC 
owns a sixty percent interest in Cingular Wireless, which provides 
nationwide cellular telephone and Internet-related services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\
    34 Prior to 1996, SBC was subject to line of business 
restrictions imposed by the AT&T Consent Decree or Modified 
Final Judgment (``MFJ''). These prevented SBC's entry into 
markets such as long distance telephone and imposed numerous 
affirmative obligations to assist actual and potential competitors. 
See U.S.v. AT&T, 522 F. Supp. at 186-;95 (setting forth 
line of business restructions); United States v. Western Electric 
Co., 673 F. Supp. 525 (D.DC 1987) (upholding ``core'' line 
of business restrictions on local telephone companies), aff'd in 
part, rev'd on other grounds, 900 F.2d 283 (DC Cir. 1990). These 
provisions, which were of indefinite duration, were ultimately 
superseded by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which replaced the 
MFJ with detailed regulatory obligations to preserve non-
discriminatory access to the local telephone network, to require SBC 
to share its network elements at regulated prices, and to take 
affirmative actions to open its local network to competition as the 
price for entry into the long distance market. See 
Telecommunications Act of 1996, 42 U.S.C. 
251-;59, and 271 et seq. The 
duration, detail and substantial scope of those affirmative 
requirements and prohibitions, even when they were embodied in the 
MFJ, stand in marked contrast to the trivial and temporary 
prohibitions applied to the Microsoft monopoly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Various SBC affiliates, including Prodigy, provide ISP services, 
as well as dial-up and broadband (via DSL) Internet access services 
nationwide. SBC recently finalized a joint venture with Yahoo, 
whereby Yahoo will provide SBC's Internet portal (home page). In 
addition, SBC owns an ``Internet Data Center'' which rents 
server usage to businesses and e-commerce clients.
    Microsoft is an actual competitor of SBC in all of these 
businesses, including voice telephony. Microsoft is actively 
developing its Voice over Internet Protocol (``VoIP'') 
through its ``Net2Phone'' business. This service is being 
embedded in Windows XP, with the aim of convincing customers to use 
the Internet for long distance and local calls. Microsoft also 
provides an Internet access service, MSN, which takes advantage of 
Microsoft's operating system monopoly by virtue of its being bundled 
with Windows. By bundling additional products and services such as 
its ``.NET'' initiative and its Passport service with 
Windows XP, Microsoft is also using its monopoly power to give 
itself an unfair advantage in new markets for Internet and e-
commerce business solutions.
    Even in businesses in which Microsoft is not now a direct 
competitor of SBC, however, such as local, long distance and 
cellular telephone service, Microsoft's operating system monopoly 
poses grave risks to the competitive marketplace that Congress 
sought to ensure in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. If Microsoft 
is permitted by the proposed settlement to maintain and expand its 
PC operating system monopoly, it will become the gatekeeper for 
competitors to offer and for consumers to access key communications 
and entertainment products and services, including telephone, 
Internet access, voice messaging, instant messaging, music, video 
services, e-commerce, and interactive games. Without strong remedial 
measures designed to break its operating system monopoly (which the 
proposed settlement does not contain), Microsoft will be in a 
position to favor its own and its partners' communications, 
entertainment and related services, to exclude competitors'' 
services from access to consumers, to impose costs on rivals and to 
degrade their services (whether through a toll, a charge for being 
listed as an available service or an interoperability obstacle), all 
with the effect of squelching competition and harming consumers. No 
provisions in the proposed settlement even address, let alone bar, 
such anticompetitive conduct.
    Just as Microsoft has for years successfully imposed on 
consumers its own software products and other services, irrespective 
of the comparative merits of competing products it excluded from the 
market, Microsoft will be able to repeat its anticompetitive 
strategy in collateral markets including the key communications and 
entertainment markets described above. This is not speculation; 
Microsoft has already announced that it is developing an extension 
to Windows XP, named Freestyle, that will make its Windows PC the 
communications gateway to the home. See Byron Acohido, Challenge 
Microsoft? It Could Take Moxi, USA Today, Jan. 16, 2002, at B-3; 
Microsoft Unveils New Home PC Experiences with 
``Freestyle'' and ``Mira'' (Jan. 7, 2002), at 
www.Microsoft.com/presspass/Press/2002/Jan02/01.
    2. Unified Messaging
    SBC's Unified Messaging Service (``UMS'') is a good 
example of a new business placed at serious risk because of the 
anticompetitive actions that the proposed settlement Would allow UMS 
is currently in the final development stages, with a projected 
market introduction in late 2002. UMS will allow customers to 
retrieve their voice, e-mail and

[[Page 28615]]

fax messages from a single ``mailbox'' that will be 
accessible by phone (wire or wireless) or via the Internet. In the 
future, SBC plans to add other services to UMS, including instant 
messaging and video messaging.
    UMS is the first in a new generation of services that will 
create a convergence of all voice, video and data services into one 
application. Central to UMS is the principle of ``any device, 
anywhere.'' SBC has designed UMS to be fully accessible through 
any type of telephone, personal computer, or handheld device. UMS 
will operate on any software operating system and with any 
combination of other software applications and services. UMS is also 
``agnostic as to provider,'' meaning that it will function 
regardless of the provider of Internet access, phone or wireless 
service. For example, consumers can access UMS as easily and 
effectively through an inexpensive cellular phone that makes no use 
of Microsoft technology as they call through an expensive Windows PC 
using Internet Explorer as its browser.
    UMS and similar services offered by other companies will compete 
by giving consumers the ultimate in choice and convenience, enabling 
them to access all UMS services from virtually any phone or 
computing device anywhere in the world. UMS will be a direct 
competitor of Microsoft's e-mail service (Hotmail), and with MS 
Messenger, a video and instant messaging service, both of which are 
promoted through integration with Windows.
    B. UMS Is An Integral Part Of Movement To Server-Based Computing 
Model That Will Erode The Applications Barrier To Entry That 
Currently Shields Microsoft's Monopoly Power
    Because UMS will function with any operating system or Internet 
browser, and will provide a number of the same functions (voice/data 
messaging, e-mail, instant messaging) that are or will be provided 
by a Windows PC, UMS presents a significant competitive threat to 
Microsoft's PC operating system monopoly. UMS is part of the 
``movement off the desktop'' taking place in the computer 
industry, which offers increased flexibility and choice to the 
consumer.
    Central to this innovation is that the vast majority of actual 
computing functions will be performed away from the consumer's 
computing devices, on servers connected through the Internet. A 
consumer will no longer need a Windows PC, containing a large hard 
drive and powerful microprocessor. Instead a simpler, inexpensive 
device, such as a cell phone or PDA, with a very basic operating 
system and an Internet browser, when coupled with products like UMS, 
will allow the consumer to perform many of the functions of a 
Windows PC at a significantly reduced price and with much greater 
flexibility and convenience. D.Ct. at 22-;27, 56, 
59-;60 (cited with approval in CA at 52, 79).
    In order for UMS to function, however, and to present a 
competitive alternative to the Windows PC operating system monopoly, 
SBC must have the ability to effectively process voice and data 
transmissions through a complex network of different servers, each 
of which performs separate functions and employs different 
technologies. At a minimum, when a UMS customer seeks to retrieve a 
message, either by phone or through the Internet, the voice or data 
transmission will travel between and through several separate SBC 
servers (gate, mail, LDAP (lightweight directory access protocol), 
directory and web server). Each of these servers performs 
independent functions. As a result, it is critical to UMS that any 
type of PC, Internet browser, cell phone or handheld device be fully 
interoperable with all of SBC's servers. UMS also has the potential 
to be used in a home network, thus requiring full interoperability 
to extend to set-top boxes.
    In short, for SBC and other companies to deliver Internet-based 
services like UMS, they absolutely must have a ``protected 
chain of interoperability'' extending throughout all computers, 
servers, and other devices which participate on the 
Internet--;including the Internet browser and PC. If only one 
link on the chain is not fully interoperable with the entire 
network, UMS will not be able to process its voice and data 
transmissions, and thus the convenience and vast array of choices 
UMS could bring to consumers as an alternative to the Windows PC 
operating system monopoly will be eliminated.
    There is little doubt that Microsoft will continue to recognize 
the danger that server-based computing, and multi-platform, multi-
device products like UMS, pose to the applications barrier to entry. 
D.Ct. at 60 (cited with approval in CA at 79). Such 
alternative server-based computing pathways on the Internet, which 
rely on open operation and architecture, like Java, will attract 
applications used for Internet communications. In the past when such 
threats to the applications barrier to entry that protects the 
Microsoft monopoly have emerged, Microsoft has responded with 
anticompetitive conduct. Indeed, the actions taken by Microsoft to 
eliminate Netscape and Java, found to be illegally exclusionary by 
the District Court and the Court of Appeals, had the sole purpose of 
protecting the applications barrier to entry. As shown below, 
however, the deficiencies in the proposed settlement are so 
pervasive that SBC's competitive, Internet-based offering and 
similar products from other companies are threatened with the same 
fate as Netscape and Java.
    C. The Proposed Settlement Would Allow Microsoft To Render SBC's 
Internet-Based Businesses Significantly Less Competitive
    1. The Proposed Settlement Will Allow Microsoft To Block 
Consumers' Access To Competing Products And To Impede Their 
Functionality
    Under the proposed settlement, Microsoft could use its monopoly 
power to (i) prevent UMS and related products from being accessed by 
anyone using a Windows PC and IE; (ii) degrade or impede the ability 
of UMS to function on a Windows PC; and/or (iii) deny UMS access to 
the Windows desktop. Moreover, Microsoft could avoid the 
requirements of the proposed settlement by simply claiming UMS was a 
``service.'' See pp. 46-;48 supra. Because the 
proposed settlement does not require Microsoft to ensure that UMS 
will function smoothly on Windows, or even have proper access to the 
Windows desktop, it could significantly harm the ability of UMS to 
compete with Microsoft products providing similar services. The 
danger, of course, is not limited just to UMS, but applies equally 
to related communications and entertainment products and services 
that are being developed and offered by other companies.
    i. Blocking Access to UMS
    The inadequate interoperability/disclosure provisions in the 
proposed settlement would allow Microsoft to completely block all 
access to a competing product, like UMS, for all users of a Windows 
PC and IE. Because the proposed settlement does not require any 
disclosure to ensure interoperability between IE and a non-Microsoft 
server operating system, Microsoft is able, and indeed encouraged, 
to change, and then withhold disclosure of, IE's protocols in order 
to prevent interoperability with those SBC servers that run on non-
Microsoft operating systems. In that case, all UMS customers would 
be unable to access their UMS account from a Windows PC operating 
system equipped with IE.
    Should SBC decide to convert the entire UMS network of servers 
to Microsoft operating systems, Microsoft would still, under the 
proposed settlement, be able to block access to UMS for some users. 
In this event, Microsoft could merely program its server operating 
system so that it could not interoperate with a non-Microsoft 
browser. In fact, Microsoft employed this very strategy recently, 
when it reprogrammed its web servers for the MSN website to block 
all access by consumers using the competing Netscape and Opera 
browsers. See p. 80 supra.
    ii. Degrading the Performance of UMS
    Should Microsoft choose not to completely block access to UMS, 
the proposed settlement permits Microsoft to substantially degrade 
UMS' functionality on a Windows PC operating system. The degradation 
can be accomplished by programming Microsoft's PC operating system 
in such a way that UMS' functions are purposefully disadvantaged. 
For instance, by altering the program codes for IE or Microsoft's 
version of Java, Microsoft can hinder the performance of UMS on a 
Windows PC operating system, including the speed at which UMS 
processes requests, its efficiency and the graphical presentation 
the user sees.
    iii. Denying UMS Access to the Windows Desktop
    SBC's strategy for UMS is largely dependent on having access to 
and visibility on the desktop, as well as on OEMs and end-users 
being able to change default settings in the Windows operating 
system to select the SBC home page or set the pre-login screen to 
allow for message notification. Without provisions in the settlement 
guaranteeing these rights, Microsoft can prevent UMS from having its 
own icon on the Windows desktop, or being on the Windows start menu. 
Furthermore, the proposed settlement would allow Microsoft to 
prevent UMS customers from choosing to set the SBC-Yahoo homepage as 
their default homepage on IE. Likewise, nothing in the proposed

[[Page 28616]]

settlement would stop Microsoft from denying SBC equal access to the 
pre-login indicators on the desktop for message notification. Only 
through such notification could UMS compete with Microsoft's Hotmail 
or Messenger, which have such indicators on both the desktop and the 
pre-login screen for the purpose of notifying the subscriber that 
messages are waiting.
    2. Microsoft Can Foreclose Competition By Using Its Ability To 
Raise Its Rivals' Costs
    By not requiring ``seamless interoperability,'' the 
proposed settlement would allow Microsoft to raise substantially the 
fixed costs associated with a competing product or service, as well 
as the ultimate cost to the consumer, to the point that such 
products are unable to compete. The anticompetitive initiatives 
Microsoft can pursue under the proposed settlement will force 
Internet-based businesses to move toward using Microsoft server 
operating systems and software exclusively. At the same time, the 
settlement will channel consumer access to the Internet through 
Windows PC operating systems, which consumers will have to purchase 
in order to obtain IE.
    For example, SBC currently uses Microsoft server operating 
systems for less than 5% of its UMS server network, and anticipates 
this percentage will approach zero within the next few 
years--;provided there is full interoperability among servers, 
PCs, PDAs, phones and all other computing devices. If the proposed 
settlement is approved, however, SBC will probably have no choice 
but to replace its entire UMS server network at considerable cost 
with Microsoft server operating systems and software.
    Microsoft's server operating systems are currently significantly 
more expensive than those of its competitors, and this price 
differential is likely to grow as Microsoft solidifies its position 
in the server market. Even at current prices, replacing the UMS 
server network with Microsoft server operating systems would 
significantly increase SBC's overall costs for UMS (including the 
cost of hardware, software, maintenance of hardware and software, 
staff, network management, and disaster recovery). In addition, if 
SBC were required to replace the hardware in its entire current 
server network within the next few years, this would dramatically 
increase costs for UMS during its critical first years on the 
market. Taken together, these cost increases will make UMS a much 
less appealing alternative to the Windows PC, as the consumer's cost 
savings will be much smaller.
    UMS is not the only SBC network service to be negatively 
impacted. SBC's telephone network also utilizes many servers for 
various functions. For instance, SBC has servers that perform 
``operation support systems,'' as well as 
``operations administration maintenance and 
provisioning.'' Like UMS, under the proposed settlement these 
network support systems would be at risk, and the cost to convert 
them all to Microsoft server eperating systems would be significant.
    3. Consumers Who Want To Access The Internet Will Have To Have A 
Windows Operating System,Which Will Increase The Cost To The 
Consumer For UMS
    UMS is designed to save consumers money, because they can access 
the service through a ``dumb PC'' or handheld computing 
device, equipped only with a few features, like UMS, that will allow 
the consumer to use the Internet to perform essentially all major 
computing functions currently offered by a Windows PC at a fraction 
of the cost.
    Assuming full interoperability, a ``dumb PC'' with a 
browser would be able to access and browse the Internet as well as a 
Windows PC. Moreover, by purchasing a product like UMS to accompany 
the ``dumb PC,'' even more of the functions of a Windows 
PC (voice/data messaging, instant messaging, e-mail), would be 
available and the total price would remain substantially below a 
Windows PC. The cost savings to the consumer, when coupled with the 
other positive attributes of UMS, would make it a very attractive 
alternative to the comparable Microsoft products the consumer can 
only obtain by purchasing a Microsoft operating system.
    By preventing full interoperability throughout the network of 
servers (including the browser), however, Microsoft can destroy any 
cost savings provided by UMS, because the consumer will have to buy 
a Windows PC or another device with a Microsoft operating system in 
order to obtain IE. That operating system already will have 
integrated or bundled Microsoft products that compete with UMS (MS 
Messenger; Outlook Express, Hotmail) which are included in the cost 
of the operating system. Thus, to use UMS, the consumer will have to 
pay an ``add-on'' or double cost in addition to the cost 
of the Microsoft operating system. The competitive disadvantage, for 
both SBC and the consumer, is plain.
    4. The Proposed Settlement Will Stifle Innovation And Force 
Competitors To Sacrifice Quality In Certain Critical Markets
    SBC, or any Internet-based business, is highly dependent on the 
quality and speed of technological innovation in markets that supply 
the hardware and software used in new ventures, such as UMS, or 
established services. This is particularly true for UMS, which will 
rely on an extensive network of servers, computers and related 
devices and technologies to deliver its range of services. SBC's 
policy is to use a wide variety of suppliers for different products, 
including software, throughout the UMS networks and its other 
computer systems. To take full advantage of technological 
innovation, SBC chooses the ``best in class.'' This term 
reflects SBC's philosophy to choose the provider for each particular 
product or service that best performs the specific functions needed 
by SBC. In this way, SBC can obtain maximum benefit from the speed 
and diversity of innovation to create the most competitive products 
possible.
    In certain crucial markets, the proposed settlement will convert 
this world of choice into a world of one choice--;Microsoft. In 
the process, SBC's ability to employ its ``best in class'' 
strategy would be severely reduced. Indeed, technological innovation 
itself will be gravely hindered, particularly for server operating 
systems and server software--;two critical product areas for any 
network. This change will be driven by the proposed settlement's 
failure to ensure interoperability. As a result, consumers and 
businesses will be forced to purchase the Windows PC operating 
system, IE, and Microsoft server operating systems, or at least 
license Microsoft intellectual property, in order to guarantee full 
interoperability. The fact that Microsoft server products, 
especially in relation to the particular needs and functions of SBC, 
are more costly but by no means superior in quality or 
functionality, will no longer be determinative.
    In the longer term, as competitive choices in these markets are 
diminished, Microsoft will be able to unilaterally control the pace 
of innovation. Currently, many different companies are working to 
innovate and develop different product functions and niche uses. SBC 
can take advantage of specialized innovations that are essential to 
supporting or improving its operations. In the world created by the 
proposed settlement, however, Microsoft will be the sole arbiter of 
what areas, products or uses should or should not be explored for 
technological advancement. Microsoft would be free to stifle 
innovation in a particular area that may be crucial to developing a 
product or service which competes with Microsoft.
    The government made this very point to the District Court 
through the testimony of one of its expert economists, who stated 
that Microsoft's exclusionary practices had

    interfered with the process of innovation in three distinct 
ways. First, consumers did not get the innovative products that the 
technology being developed by Netscape and Sun might have delivered. 
Second, Microsoft's predatory acts had a chilling effect on 
innovative efforts by all people who might have developed other 
software technologies that Microsoft found threatening. Third, 
Microsoft harmed the innovative process because it limited 
competition, and competitive markets are, on balance, the best 
mechanism for guiding technology down a path that benefits 
consumers.

Romer Decl. 5.
    The effect of the proposed settlement on UMS is illustrative. 
SBC currently uses between 15 and 20 different providers for 
different products, including software, throughout the UMS network. 
In the ``Microsoft world'' that would be created by the 
proposed settlement, SBC expects that it would be limited to a total 
of 5 to 10 providers. Each of the lost providers will have to be 
replaced by Microsoft products because of interoperability obstacles 
created by Microsoft commingling and nondisclosure.
    SBC currently uses three separate server operating systems in 
its UMS operations, based on the particular needs and functions of 
different servers throughout the network. The three products are a 
UNIX operating system which is run on servers produced by several 
companies; Linux operating systems which run on a variety of 
servers; and, for certain limited functions, Microsoft server 
operating systems (which are run on less than five percent of the 
UMS network). In SBC's view, the Microsoft server operating systems 
are substantially less effective than

[[Page 28617]]

competitors'' systems in performing the functions needed by the 
UMS network. Among other things, Microsoft products have a poor 
security performance history, see pp. 90-;91 supra, and thus it 
is SBC's policy that no server that faces the Internet is based on a 
Microsoft server operating system. As a result of the need for 
interoperability, however, under the proposed settlement, SBC could 
be forced to use Microsoft server operating systems throughout the 
UMS network.
    SBC's choices will be similarly circumscribed for server 
software. For its mail server and directory server, SBC currently 
uses a range of non-Microsoft software products. For the functions 
needed by the UMS network, these products better meet SBC's 
requirements, and are less costly than, comparable Microsoft 
products. For SBC's web server, which is the critical primary link 
to the Internet and the Internet browsers, SBC uses server software 
from Apache. The Apache software is also preferable to comparable 
offerings from Microsoft for this purpose.
    Similarly, in the areas of network management and voice over 
Internet protocol (``VoIP''), SBC could well be forced to 
switch to Microsoft products under the proposed settlement. Network 
management products essentially ensure that SBC's telephone network 
runs effectively and reliably, by monitoring the system for 
failures, analyzing configuration, and developing utilization 
statistics. The network management software currently used by SBC is 
more efficient and less costly than comparable Microsoft products. 
In the VoIP area, SBC's ``gateway,'' which translates 
voice conversations into VoIP, uses a non-Microsoft, ITU 
(``International Telecommunications Union'') H.323-
compliant gateway, or translator. If the proposed settlement were 
approved, nothing would prevent Microsoft, by changing its server or 
browser programs to a non-compliant format, from forcing SBC to 
replace this translator with a Microsoft product or a product that 
incorporates Microsoft-licensed intellectual property to ensure the 
interoperability required for SBC's telephone network to function.
    5. Delayed Disclosure Will Harm Competition
    The flexibility provided to Microsoft to delay the disclosure of 
technical information could also significantly harm the competitive 
prospects of UMS and related products. As explained above, Microsoft 
can delay the release of technical information related to 
interoperability with a new Windows product or a change in an 
existing Windows product until very close to the time when the new 
or altered product is placed on the market. See pp. 80-;85 
supra. SBC, and other competitors, thus face the very real 
possibility that there will be insufficient time to ensure that a 
competing product, like UMS, will be fully interoperable when a new 
or altered Windows product is introduced. If UMS is not fully 
interoperable, the result would be that certain UMS customers who 
attempted to access their mailbox from a Windows PC would be 
``dropped''--;meaning their request for data or voice 
information would not be processed. Since SBC plans that UMS will 
have over 5 million customers by 2007, if UMS is not fully 
interoperable with Windows PCs for even one day, many UMS customers 
would be ``dropped.'' The negative consequences should 
customers be unable to access their UMS mailboxes for any period of 
time are obvious.
    By making it impossible for server operating systems which run 
websites on the Internet to interoperate with non-Windows operating 
systems, Microsoft will be able to force all businesses and all 
consumers to conform to the Windows world. With over 90% of the 
operating system and browser markets, for example, Microsoft can 
make its Passport product the dominant intermediary between 
consumers and e-commerce web sites, and can effectively impose a tax 
or toll on all transactions. If it wishes to, Microsoft will be able 
to use its browser dominance to ensure that any web portal in which 
it has a stake receives preferential display. And if it chooses to, 
Microsoft will be able to use its browser dominance to control the 
flow of information or content on the Internet by using its Internet 
gate-keeper position to prefer one type of message over another, for 
example, blocking access to sites that are critical of Microsoft. In 
all of these ways, Microsoft can use the developing world of 
Internet technology to protect and strengthen its PC operating 
system monopoly.
    V. WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT CHANGES, THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT CANNOT 
SATISFY THE PUBLIC INTEREST STANDARD
    As shown, the proposed settlement allows Microsoft to continue 
exclusionary practices, like commingling, to easily evade virtually 
all of the proposed settlement's proscriptions and affirmative 
obligations, and, by simply doing what the settlement allows, or 
fails to enjoin, ensuring that the next generation of threats to the 
operating system monopoly in the form of Internet servers and web-
based computing never leaves its crib. By the time the proposed 
settlement expires, Microsoft middleware will be the firmly 
entrenched medium of Internet communication, displacing open 
architecture with a closed proprietary system; all competition will 
be forced to use Microsoft's proprietary standards instead of the 
open architecture currently thriving as the medium for program 
development and communication; and OEMs will be even more beholden 
to Microsoft's demands. This is the teaching of an exhaustive trial 
record and a careful appellate review that affirmed the lower 
court's findings of a decade-long scheme of monopoly maintenance in 
violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
    Under the law of the District of Columbia Circuit, the proposed 
settlement falls far short of providing any meaningful remedy for 
this most serious of antitrust violations and for that reason alone 
does not satisfy the public interest standard. United States v. 
Microsoft, 56 F.3d 1448, 1458 (DC Cir. 1995) (The Court must 
``make an independent determination whether the proposed 
consent decree [is] in the public interest.''). Worse still, 
because the proposed settlement operates to perpetuate this unlawful 
monopoly by permitting the continuation without sanction of conduct 
previously found to be exclusionary, the proposed settlement in fact 
injures the public interest. For these reasons, the District Court 
must reject it.
    Indeed, the proposed settlement fails to meet the public 
interest standard on all of the bases set out in the 1995 Microsoft 
decision. As discussed above, and in further detail below in the 
context of recommended changes and additions to the proposed consent 
decree, the settlement now advanced by the government (1) is 
``ambiguous'' in many respects and fiddled with loopholes 
and exceptions to key provisions; (2) presents numerous 
``difficulties in implementation'' that arise because so 
many provisions leave compliance in Microsoft's sole discretion; (3) 
has been subject to widespread condemnation by ``third parties 
[who] contend that they would be positively injured by the 
decree,'' including SBC; and (4) in view of the remedies the 
government said were absolutely essential only two years 
ago--;after the District Court's detailed findings as to 
monopolization were upheld on appeal--;but which have now been 
omitted from the proposed decree, ``on its face and even after 
government explanation, appears to make a mockery of judicial 
power.'' Microsoft Corp., 56 F.3d at 1462.
    For these reasons, SBC submits that the proposed decree should 
not be entered. The proposal made by the Litigating States would, if 
adopted in its entirety, adequately serve the public interest in 
SBC's view. Alternatively, SBC respectfully offers the following 
detailed revisions that, if fully incorporated into the proposed 
settlement, would provide an appropriate remedy for Microsoft's 
adjudicated wrongdoing:
    A. Changes Must Be Made to RPFJ III.A (OEM and 
Other Licensee Retaliation)
    Sections 8 and 9 of the Litigating States' proposal provide an 
adequate remedy prohibiting retaliation by Microsoft against others. 
Alternatively, the following revisions should be made to the 
proposed settlement:
    III.A The retaliation provision should not be 
limited to OEMs, but should also prohibit retaliation against any 
third party that is a licensee or potential licensee of Microsoft 
products or services. Given Microsoft's proven propensity to root 
out and extinguish competition wherever it develops, the risk of 
retaliation could affect many sources of competitive pressure on 
Microsoft besides OEMs. One example would be third-party software 
system integrators, who pull together products from numerous 
different vendors to give customers a software or total computing 
package that is tailored to their specific needs.
    The term ``retaliation,'' which is not defined in the 
proposed settlement, must be defined broadly to include ``any 
threats or any actions that directly or indirectly have an adverse 
effect'' on OEMs or other licensees. The phrase ``by 
altering Microsoft's commercial relations, or by withholding newly 
introduced forms of non-monetary Consideration'' should be 
eliminated, because it unnecessarily limits the scope of the term 
retaliation. Microsoft's proven ability to devise new forms of 
anticompetitive restraints to meet new competitive threats amply 
justifies this broad definition.

[[Page 28618]]

    The scope of the conduct by OEMs and other licensees which 
cannot be subject to retaliation by Microsoft must be broadened. The 
provision should prohibit adverse action by Microsoft based on the 
OEM or other licensee undertaking or contemplating ``any 
business activity that promotes or distributes software, products or 
services that may be competitive with Microsoft products or 
services.'' See Final Judgment 3(a)(i)(1). Again 
the record of Microsoft's constantly evolving panoply of 
anticompetitive actions justifies the broad prohibition to 
``pry open'' the market to competition. The burden should 
be on Microsoft, as the convicted lawbreaker, to seek an exception 
to the decree's prohibitions if it believes there is a reasonable, 
procompetitive justification for a particular adverse action.
    III.A.1, III.A.2 and III.A.3 Each of these 
subsections should be deleted because they limit the scope of the 
conduct by OEMs for which Microsoft is prohibited from retaliating.
    The provision in the second half of III.A 
addressing license termination should require that Microsoft show 
good cause before terminating the license of an OEM or other 
licensee, in addition to giving written notice and an opportunity to 
cure. See Litigating States' 2(a). The provision should 
also be changed to give the licensee 60 days' opportunity to cure. 
Id. The exception allowing Microsoft to terminate an OEM's license 
if it has previously given two or more written notices should be 
deleted because it is too easily subject to abuse. All of these 
changes are necessary to ensure that Microsoft, given its sorry 
history of abuse, deals fairly with licensees.
    The exception in III.A that 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 the Microsoft 
product or service'' should be deleted. It provides Microsoft 
the opportunity to provide unlawful incentives to licensees based on 
undefined criteria (``absolute level or amount'') that 
Microsoft alone determines.
    Proposed Additions to Follow RPFJ III.A
    B. A Provision Prohibiting Retaliation By Microsoft Against Any 
Party Who Participates In The Litigation Must Be Added
    A provision, such as Litigating States' proposal 9, should be 
added following III.A to specifically prohibit 
Microsoft from retaliating against any individual or entity who 
participates or cooperates in any way in any aspect or phase of 
antitrust litigation involving Microsoft. Such a provision will 
ensure that Microsoft does not retaliate against any individual or 
entity that has participated thus far, and will afford protection to 
any individual or entity that wishes to come forward with complaints 
against Microsoft based on the consent decree that is ultimately 
entered. In view of Microsoft's continuing dominant position, its 
history of retaliation, and the fear it has engendered throughout 
the marketplace, such a provision is both necessary and reasonable.
    C. A Provision Requiring Microsoft To Port ``Office'' 
To Apple's Operating System Must Be Added
    Litigating States' proposal 14 should be included 
in the decree to require Microsoft to continue making and updating a 
version of its ``Office'' business productivity suite that 
can be ported to the Apple operating system, and to require 
Microsoft to auction licenses to third parties to facilitate the 
creation of versions of Office that port to operating systems other 
than Windows. Such a provision is necessary because the Apple 
Macintosh operating system at present is the only viable alternative 
to Windows as an Office platform, but if others develop, they should 
have access to this widely-used application software. Such a 
provision is justified by the specific findings, affirmed on appeal, 
that Microsoft used the threat of dropping support for the Apple 
version of Office to coerce Apple into using IE as its default 
browser.
    D. Changes Must Be Made To RPFJ III.B (Uniform 
Licensing)
    The subject of uniform licensing is adequately addressed in 
2(a) and 2(b) of the Litigating States' proposal. 
Alternatively, the RPFJ should be revised as follows:
    III.B
    For the reasons discussed in connection with RPFJ 
III.A., the provision must apply not only to 
Microsoft's licensing to OEMs, but to all third party licensees. 
III.B.2
    The proposed decree should allow Microsoft to provide reasonable 
volume discounts only if they are based upon an independent 
determination of the actual volume of shipments. See p. 102 supra; 
Litigating States' 2(a)(ii). III.B.3
    This provision and its three subsections should be eliminated. 
Instead, the provision should include an outright prohibition, such 
as that included in Final Judgment 3(a)(ii) or 
Litigating States' 2(a), against Microsoft's offering 
market development allowances (``MDAs'') or discounts to 
OEMs or third party licensees. This loophole allowing MDAs makes it 
possible, as a practical matter, for Microsoft to engage in the very 
discrimination that the provision is intended to prevent.
    Proposed Additions to Follow RPFJ III.B
    A provision should be added to the proposed decree that would 
require that Microsoft provide OEMs and other licensees with equal 
access to ``licensing terms, discounts, technical, marketing 
and sales support, product and technical information, information 
about future plans, developer tools or support, hardware 
certification and permission to display trademarks or logos.'' 
gee Litigating grates' 2(b); Final Judgment 
3(a5(ii5. Without this provision, Microsoft will be 
able to keep such information secret, which will allow Microsoft to 
continue to take advantage of licensees' ignorance about what terms 
are available.
    F. A Provision Prohibiting Microsoft From Enforcing Agreements 
That Are Inconsistent With The RPFJ Must Be Added
    A provision should be added that prohibits Microsoft from 
enforcing any contract terms or agreements that are inconsistent 
with the decree. See Litigating States' 2(a); Final Judgment 
3(a)(ii). This prophylactic measure is justified by 
Microsoft's proven history of evasion of antitrust regulation and 
anticompetitive conduct.
    G. Changes Must Be Made to RPFJ III.C (Restrictions 
on OEM Configuration of PCs)
    Section III.C attempts to address Microsoft's past illegal 
imposition of restrictions on OEM configuration of the desktop. 
These restfictions closed the OEM distribution channel to non-
Microsoft middleware. Because the provision fails to address 
Microsoft's commingling of code, contains no affirmative requirement 
to offer a stripped-down version of Windows with a corresponding 
price reduction, and is fiddled with loopholes and ambiguities that 
allow Microsoft to override both OEM and end-user choices regarding 
competing middleware products, section III.C fails to accomplish its 
goal. To effectively close these loopholes and reopen the OEM 
distribution channel in an effort to revive middleware competition, 
SBC recommends the following:
    The Litigating States' proposal is adequate to satisfy SBC's 
concerns regarding the effectiveness of OEM configuration options. 
SBC recommends that the Litigating States' proposals addressing 
restrictions on OEM options be adopted to replace section III.C of 
the proposed settlement. See Litigating States' 
1, 2(c), 3, 8, 10. In the alternative, SBC 
recommends the following modifications to the proposed decree:
    III.C
    Following the words ``OEM licensee'', the phrase 
``or Third Parties'' should be added. ``Third 
Parties'' should be defined as ``any persons offering to 
purchase from Microsoft at least 10,000 licenses of a product or 
products offered and licensed to OEMs, including without limitation 
ISVs, systems integrators, and value-added resellers.'' See 
Litigating States'' 22(oo). As described in these 
comments, this would allow third party software customizers to 
develop as a competitive force in the industry, as they may well 
have absent Microsoft's illegal conduct.
    Add after the word ``alternatives'' in the first 
sentence of the provision ``..., which are set forth below, by 
way of example and not limitation: .... ''This prevents the 
list of items that follows from becoming an exclusive list of the 
restrictions Microsoft cannot impose on OEMs. Broad language is 
necessary so that the remedy can be adapted to technological 
changes.
    Added to the list should be an option that states OEMs are free 
to display alternative non-Microsoft desktops, provided that an icon 
or other means of user access is provided to the Microsoft desktop. 
This allows OEMs the freedom to offer consumers completely separate 
non-Microsoft interfaces without interfering with, changing the 
appearance of, or precluding access to, the Microsoft desktop.
    III.C.1
    This subsection is meant to ensure that OEMs are free to install 
competing middleware products and services and to place icons and 
shortcuts to those products on the desktop. CIS at 30. To fulfill 
that purpose:
    Eliminate everything after the words ``generally 
displayed.'' The exception that

[[Page 28619]]

follows those words may be misconstrued as providing Microsoft 
discretion to prohibit OEMs from featuring middleware products as to 
which Microsoft may not offer a competing product or a product with 
the same ``functionality.'' The deletion of the language 
prevents any misunderstanding.
    Section III.C. 1 should also make clear that Microsoft may not 
restrict OEMs from offering an alternative desktop, provided that an 
icon linking the user to the Windows desktop is also displayed. This 
would expand options for consumers, while at the same time reducing 
the burden on OEMs of attempting to conform to Microsoft's desktop 
requirements.
    III.C.2
    Related to section III.C.1 is subsection 2, which prevents 
Microsoft from restricting an OEM's ability to distribute and 
promote non-Microsoft Middleware by displaying shortcuts on the 
desktop. However, the provision limits this ability to those 
middleware products that do not impair the 
``functionality'' of Windows. At the end of the provision, 
the following language should be added: ``Whether the 
functionality is impaired shall be determined by the Technical 
Committee upon Microsoft's written submission to the Committee as to 
how the OEM modification impairs the functionality of the Windows 
Operating System.'' Nowhere in the decree is the term 
``functionality'' defined. So as not to leave the 
determination as to whether a change impairs the 
``functionality'' of Windows in Microsoft's discretion, 
either the term should be defined in the definitions section of the 
decree, or the aforementioned language should be added.
    III.C.3
    Subsection III.C.3 requires Microsoft to permit OEMs to 
configure the desktop in a manner that allows non-Microsoft products 
to launch automatically at the conclusion of the tint or subsequent 
boot sequences or upon connection or disconnection from the 
Internet. To accomplish this:
    Eliminate everything after ``a user interface'' and 
replace it with ``that may be seen as attempting to imitate the 
trade dress of or otherwise appear identical to the corresponding 
Microsoft Middleware Product.'' While subsection 3 attempts to 
prevent ISVs from palming-off their products as Microsoft products, 
as currently written, the provision appears to give Microsoft 
discretion to decide, in the first instance, which 
competitors'' icons and interfaces, and in what form, may be 
displayed. The change clarifies the intent.
    As in Section III.C.1 above, this provision contains imprecise 
language describing when and whether a Non-Microsoft Middleware 
Product can launch automatically (``if a Microsoft Middleware 
Product that provides similar functionality would otherwise be 
launched automatically at that time'') that can be interpreted 
as allowing Microsoft to stop OEMs from launching innovative 
middleware products as to which Microsoft has not developed a 
competing product. This language should be deleted both to avoid any 
possibility of such an interpretation and also because Microsoft's 
business choices should not determine or in any way limit OEMs' 
decision to launch a non-Microsoft product or service.
    The provision should include the phrase ``..., application 
or service (including any security/authentication service)'' 
after the first appearance of the term ``Non-Microsoft 
Middleware''. This would allow ISVs to compete with Microsoft's 
new products and services such as NET and Passport to which Windows 
XP contains embedded prompts in the initial boot sequence and on the 
MSN default homepage.
    As now drafted, the provision can be read as limiting 
competition 0nly to the categories of middleware product that 
existed when the litigation began, i.e., browsers and media players.
    The settlement should require that, as part of ensuring that a 
Non-Microsoft Middleware Product can launch automatically in place 
of a Microsoft Middleware Product, the non-Microsoft product will 
replace the Microsoft product in such cross-dependent scenarios as 
when clicking on a URL in Microsoft Word. In the past, regardless of 
a user's selection of default browser, IE would launch in its place 
when the user attempted to reach the Internet in this fashion. 
Microsoft should not be permitted to automatically invoke its 
middleware products despite a contrary choice by a consumer or OEM.
    III.C.5
    In this section concerning an OEM's freedom to promote a 
competing IAP, the settlement must either identify what a 
``reasonable technical specification'' is or otherwise 
remove that determination from Microsoft's sole discretion. 
Otherwise, Microsoft will be able to block OEMs from featuring 
competing IAPs for virtually any reason, or else impose 
anticompetitive requirements, such as the use of Microsoft's 
proprietary protocols, before a competing IAP is allowed on the 
desktop. Proposed Additions to Follow RPFJ
    III.C
    H. A Provision That Prohibits Microsoft From Commingling Must Be 
Added
    A provision that reads similarly to the Litigating States' 
proposed 1 should be adopted to prevent Microsoft from 
repeating the illegal conduct that the Court of Appeals found it 
engaged in by commingling the code of its IE browser with the code 
for its Windows operating system. A restriction on the practice of 
binding middleware to the operating system is essential to restoring 
competition by making the OEM distribution channel a viable option 
once again for software vendors. See Litigating States' 1. Such a 
provision will have the salutary collateral effect of preventing the 
exceptions contained in RPFJ III.H from rendering the 
substance of sections III.C and III.H meaningless, as well as 
supporting innovation. See Shapiro Decl. at 23 (stating that an 
anti-binding provision in the Final Judgment, similar to the one 
proposed here, ``strikes an excellent balance between the 
consumer benefits that can arise when Microsoft adds functionality 
to its operating system and the benefits that consumers enjoy when 
new and improved software is developed independently of Microsoft, 
especially if that software may serve a role in eroding Microsoft's 
monopoly position. By allowing OEMs to choose whether to make 
Microsoft's Middleware Products or rival software directly available 
to end-users, OEMs will have the incentive to experiment to best 
serve consumers' interest.'').
    I. A Provision Determining The Relative Prices Of Unbundled 
Versions of Windows Must Be Added
    Either as part of the provision dealing with the binding of 
middleware or elsewhere in the decree, there must be a provision 
requiring Microsoft to differentiate its product prices based on an 
OEM's selection of the Microsoft middleware products, if any, that 
it chooses to bundle with the Windows operating system. Such a 
mechanism must ensure that ``stripped-down'' versions of 
Windows cost less than the fully loaded version in a proportion that 
properly reflects the value of middleware products not included. 
Failure to provide a pricing mechanism, such as those contained in 
States' proposal 1 and 3(b), removes any incentive 
OEMs have to create software packages composed of competing 
middleware products.
    Several such mechanisms are possible. The Final Judgment 
provided that pricing be guided based on bytes of code. See Final 
Judgment 3(g)(ii). SBC believes it would be preferable 
to allocate costs between the operating system and the removed 
middleware based on measurements of ``function point 
code.'' The International Function Point Users Group Counting 
Practices Manual is a generally accepted, objective industry 
standard for measuring non-multimedia software (which excludes games 
and training software) and estimating software costs using an 
existing code base. See T. Capers Jones, Estimating Software Costs 
Function Point Analysis: Measurement Practices for Successful 
Software Projects (1998); David Garmus and David Herron, Function 
Point Analysis: Measurement Practices for Successful Software 
Projects, 34-;61 (2000). Alternatively, SBC supports the use of 
a pricing mechanism based on the fully allocated product development 
costs for the operating system product and middleware products in 
question. See Litigating States' ï¿½ 1.
    J. A Provision Requiring That Microsoft Continue To Offer 
Predecessor Versions Of Windows Must Be Added
    SBC recommends adoption of Litigating States' proposed 
3. Section 3 mandates that Microsoft continue to license for 5 
years its immediate predecessor version of Windows, at a price no 
higher than the last price at which the predecessor version was 
offered. This is a further means of preventing Microsoft from 
commingling its middleware products with Windows without offering 
OEMs, end-users and third parties the chance to buy a version of the 
operating system that is both cheaper and without Microsoft products 
bound to it. Prior versions of Windows typically have less Microsoft 
middleware product bundled with or bound to the operating system, 
and rely more heavily on accepted industry standards. As a result, 
predecessor versions may be more easily configured to include non-
Microsoft middleware products.
    K. Changes Must Be Made To RPFJ III.D and 
III.E (Interoperability Disclosure)

[[Page 28620]]

    Full interoperability is necessary to prevent Microsoft from 
perpetuating its monopoly of the PC operating system market by 
exercising control over server operating systems and software, and 
Internet browsers, and using that control to eliminate the nascent 
competitive threats posed by non-Microsoft server operating systems 
and embedded devices.
    Section 4 of the Litigating States' proposal achieves full 
interoperability between (i) a Windows PC operating system and non-
Microsoft Middleware; (ii) a Windows PC operating system and a non-
Microsoft server operating system; (iii) Microsoft Middleware, 
including Internet Explorer, and a non-Microsoft server operating 
system; and (iv) Microsoft and non-Microsoft server operating 
systems. Litigating States' 4.
    To achieve full interoperability, the disclosure must include 
``all APIs, communications interfaces and other technical 
information related to interoperability.'' Litigating States' 
4. Only in this way can the ``seamless 
interoperability,'' recognized by the government in the CIS as 
the operative goal, be achieved. CIS at 38.
    The timing of required disclosure under the proposed settlement 
is equally deficient, because it provides Microsoft sufficient 
flexibility to use the timing of a disclosure to gain a competitive 
advantage for its own software. Microsoft should be required to 
disclose the technical information related to interoperability in a 
``timely manner,'' which should be defined as the earliest 
of the following: (i) when it is disclosed to Microsoft's 
applications developers; (ii) when it is used by Microsoft's 
Platform Software developers; (iii) when it is disclosed to any 
third party; or (iv) within 90 days of a final release of a new 
version of Windows, and no less than 5 days after a material change 
is made by Microsoft after the most recent beta or release candidate 
version. This is the timing provision employed by both the District 
Court's Final Judgment and the Litigating States' proposal. Final 
Judgment 3(b); Litigating States' 22 (pp).
    Proposed Additions To Follow RPFJ III.E
    L. A Provision That Requires Mandatory Distribution of Java Must 
Be Added
    The Litigating States' proposal properly requires Microsoft to 
distribute Java, free of charge, for ten years. Litigating States' 
13. The copy of Java that is distributed must be 
``a competitively performing Windows-compatible version of the 
Java runtime environment (including the Java virtual machine and 
class libraries) compliant with the latest Sun Microsystems 
Technology Compatibility Kit.'' Id. The proposed settlement 
does not require Microsoft to distribute a version of Java that is 
compliant with the latest technology from Sun Microsystems, and that 
is fully compatible with the most recent version of Windows. This 
requirement is critical to ensure full interoperability between IE 
and all non-Microsoft server operating systems, and will also help 
to erode the applications barrier to entry that shields Microsoft's 
monopoly power.
    M. A Provision Prohibiting Interference With Or Degradation Of 
Non-Microsoft Middleware Must Be Added
    The government's own expert explained the need for an 
affirmative prohibition against such interference by Microsoft as 
necessary to prevent one of the more insidious methods of monopoly 
maintenance:

    Microsoft has demonstrated its ability and incentive to hinder 
the adoption of rival middleware through a variety of exclusionary 
tactics such as it employed against Netscape's browser. Once 
Microsoft is enjoined from employing the tactics it has already 
used, Microsoft will have an incentive to switch to new, substitute 
tactics having the same effect. One such tactic is to intentionally 
degrade the performance of rival middleware interoperating with 
Windows.

Shapiro Decl. at 22. The Final Judgment and Litigating States' 
proposal explicitly prohibit Microsoft from knowingly impeding or 
degrading the performance of non-Microsoft Middleware on a Windows 
PC. Final Judgment 3(c); Litigating States' 
5.
    The Litigating States' proposal also properly requires that if 
Microsoft takes any action that would ``interfere with or 
degrade the performance of non-Microsoft Middleware,'' it must 
give 60 days advance notice to the affected ISV. Litigating States' 
8 5. The proposed settlement does not contain a knowing interference 
provision. Since the Court of Appeals specifically affirmed the 
findings upon which this remedy was based, the decision to delete it 
is difficult to understand. CA at 65-;66. To the contrary, the 
proposed settlement actually gives Microsoft the incentive to make 
slight changes to its operating system product, as part of a 
``minor upgrade,'' that would have the effect of impeding 
the interoperability of non-Microsoft middleware with a Windows PC 
operating system. See RPFJ III(D), VI(J). If the 
change is a part of a ``minor upgrade,'' Microsoft is not 
required to disclose the APIs and other technical information 
required to ensure full interoperability. Id.
    N. A Provision Requiring Microsoft to Comply With Industry 
Standards Must Be Added
    To create a level playing field and foster competition, a 
provision must be added to ensure that open or industry standards 
continue to be promoted and used by Microsoft as part of the Windows 
PC operating system environment. An industry standard is any 
technical standard that has been approved by (or has been submitted 
to and is under consideration by) any independent, publicly 
recognized organization or group that sets standards. If Microsoft 
can replace an open industry standard with its own proprietary 
codes, it will prevent full interoperability and thus reinforce the 
applications barrier to entry.
    As a result of Microsoft's monopoly power in the PC operating 
system market, it is able now, and in the foreseeable future, to 
depart from industry-recognized standards for its own competitive 
advantage. This is accomplished in two ways. First, Microsoft has in 
the past made subtle, undisclosed changes to a number of recognized 
industry standards that are used to execute functions by the Windows 
operating system. Even a small modification can severely impede the 
ability of a competing operating system or middleware product from 
interoperating with a Windows operating system product.\35\ Second, 
any new or modified standards implemented by Microsoft become, as a 
practical matter, an industry standard within a very short period of 
time because of the high percentage of Windows users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\For example, if Microsoft made subtle changes to the 
industry-recognized audio Codec standard, applications that used 
audio features, such as Real Player, would not be able to 
interoperate with a Windows PC operating system. If Real Player 
continued to employ the industry-standard Codec in its program, 
Windows PC users would be able to download that Codec to their 
Windows operating system, but would face the very real possibility 
that the program would not function with their Windows PC operating 
system as well as the competing Microsoft product, Media Player, 
which would, of course, be designed to run with Microsoft's modified 
Codec.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Microsoft's Brad Silverberg explained this Microsoft strategy in 
the context of a previous standards battle with Novell's Netware:

    It seems very clear to me that if you are currently on the 
losing end of a standard battle, your strategy needs to be: (a) 
adopt the standard so you don't force customers to choose between 
you and the standard, (b) bootstrap that so you have a reasonable 
installed base, (c) begin to change the standard on top of it to get 
people dependent on ``you.'' Once people are dependent on 
you .... you ``start to turn the crank.''

Henderson Decl. 35 (internal citations omitted).
    To ensure that Microsoft's practices are changed and to ensure 
full interoperability, the settlement must include a provision that 
requires:
    (i) that Microsoft continue to use and promote all open or 
industry-recognized standards;
    (ii) that Microsoft not alter or modify an industry standard in 
any way, except to the extent that such modification is compliant 
with, and approved by, an independent, internationally recognized 
industry standards organization;
    (iii) that Microsoft disclose any change it implements to an 
open or industry-recognized standard, in a ``timely 
manner,'' as that phrase is defined in the Litigating States' 
Proposal 22 (pp);
    (iv) that Microsoft assist any other software provider to 
achieve interoperability with any protocol Microsoft uses in any 
such situation in which Microsoft is the holder of the reference 
protocol implementation; and
    (v) that Microsoft work with all other holders of reference 
protocols to achieve and ensure interoperability with any protocol 
Microsoft uses, in any situation in which Microsoft is not the 
holder of the reference protocol implementation.
    There are over 300 separate standards used by any PC operating 
system to function within a local area network or on the internet. 
The following protocol families are among those that are 
particularly important to Internet-based computing: (1) the TCP/IP 
protocol family, which is universally used to transmit data and 
services on the Internet; (2)

[[Page 28621]]

the H.323 protocol family as defined by the ITU, which supports 
video and voice communications and is often referred to as a Voice 
over IP (VoIP) protocol; (3) the SIP protocol family, which supports 
video and voice communications, as well as instant messaging; and 
(4) the HTML/HTTP protocol family, as defined by the World Wide Web 
Consortium (W3C), which supports web browser and server protocols.
    A Provision Requiring Open-Source Licensing for Internet 
Explorer Must Be Added
    Microsoft's control of IE is an integral part of the 
anticompetitive conduct that has maintained Microsoft's monopoly 
over the PC operating system market. As the Litigating States 
propose, to remedy these anticompetitive acts and prevent 
recurrence, the source code for IE must be disclosed on a royalty-
free and non-discriminatory basis. See Litigating States' 
12.
    P. Changes Must Be Made To RPFJ III.F (Retaliation 
Against Any Third Party)
    Sections 8 and 9 of the Litigating States' proposal adequately 
address retaliation issues. Alternatively, the following revisions 
should be made in the RPFJ:
    III.F.1
    The retaliation provision must be revised to prohibit 
retaliation not only against the limited category of ISVs and IHVs, 
but against any third party. For the reasons discussed in connection 
with Section III.A above, the continually evolving nature of 
computer and software technology and business practices means that, 
as a practical matter, new threats to Microsoft's operating system 
monopoly could come from as-yet unidentified entities. In light of 
Microsoft's record of past retaliatory conduct, and the durability 
of its monopoly power, such ``nascent'' threats must be 
protected wherever and however they emerge.
    The term ``retaliation'' must to be defined broadly to 
include ``any threats or any actions that directly or 
indirectly have an adverse effect'' on third parties. See 
discussion of RPFJ III.A supra.
    The scope of conduct by third parties for which Microsoft may 
not retaliate must be broadened. The provision should prohibit 
adverse action by Microsoft based ``directly or indirectly on 
any actual or contemplated action'' by the protected party. See 
discussion of RPFJ III.A supra.
    The ban on retaliation should be based on any action or 
contemplated action by a third party ``to develop, use, 
distribute, promote, or support any non-Microsoft product or 
service.'' See Litigating States' 8. The proposed 
settlement prohibits retaliation based on a party's 
``developing, using, distributing, promoting or supporting any 
software that competes with Microsoft Platform Software or any 
software that runs on any software that competes with Microsoft 
Platform Software.'' Based on the inherent problems with the 
definition of Microsoft Platform Software, this limitation narrows 
the types of products within its scope. For example, it would be 
permissible for Microsoft to retaliate for a party's distribution or 
use of an application that competes with Office, because Office is 
not ``Microsoft Platform Software.''
    III.F.2
    At a minimum, the exception in this provision must be deleted. 
It would allow Microsoft to enter agreements that limit an ISV's 
ability to develop, promote or distribute competing software, 
``if those limitations are reasonably necessary and of 
reasonable scope and duration in relation to a bona fide contractual 
obligation of the ISV to use, distribute or promote any Microsoft 
software.'' RPFJ III.F.2. This creates a loophole 
for Microsoft to restrict an ISV's ability to develop products that 
compete with Microsoft products. Given its proven history of 
anticompetitive conduct, Microsoft should not be entitled to an 
automatic opportunity to use its market power to obtain even 
``reasonable'' exclusive dealing agreements. If Microsoft 
and an ISV believe a particular agreement has procompetitive 
justification, they can seek prior approval from the government. In 
the alternative, this entire provision may be deleted if a provision 
as discussed in V.Q below is added. See also Litigating 
States' 11; Final Judgment 3(h).
    III.F.3
    This broad savings clause, which provides that Microsoft is not 
prohibited from enforcing agreements with any ISV or IHV, or any 
intellectual property right, that is not inconsistent with the 
proposed settlement, should be removed. It is unnecessary and vague, 
and invites further litigation. Given the overwhelming record of 
Microsoft's anticompetitive conduct, the burden should not be placed 
on the government or a third party to prove that Microsoft did 
something ``inconsistent'' with the decree.
    Proposed Additions to Follow RPFJ III.F
    Q. A Provision Prohibiting Microsoft From Entering Agreements 
That Limit Competition Must Be Added
    A provision should be added, such as Litigating States' proposal 
11, prohibiting Microsoft from offering consideration to any 
competitor in exchange for the competitor's agreeing to refrain from 
developing or distributing any product or service that competes with 
any Windows Operating System or Middleware Product. See also Final 
Judgment 3(h). Such a provision is necessary to prevent Microsoft 
from seeking anticompetitive contracts that divide markets or 
otherwise limit competition, regardless of whether the 
``terms'' are reasonable. See discussion of RPFJ 
III.F.2 .supra.
    R. Changes Must Be Made To RPFJ III.G (Ban on 
Exclusive Dealing)
    SBC believes that Section 6 of the Litigating States' proposal 
is consistent with the public interest on the issue of exclusive 
dealing. Alternatively, the following changes should be made in the 
RPFJ:
    III.G.1
    The provision governing exclusive dealing must be extended to 
third parties. See Litigating States' 6; Final Judgment 
3(e). The government previously acknowledged that a 
general ban is necessary because it is too difficult to predict 
which entities Microsoft might seek to tie up in exclusive 
arrangements over the next several years. See Shapiro Decl. at 19.
    Microsoft should be prohibited from granting consideration to 
any third party that agrees to ``restrict its development, 
production, distribution, promotion or use of, or payment for, any 
non-Microsoft product or service; distribute, promote or use any 
Microsoft product or service exclusively or in a minimum percentage; 
or interfere or degrade the performance of any non-Microsoft product 
or service.'' See Litigating States' 6; Final 
Judgment 3(e). The proposed settlement would prohibit 
only agreements that grant consideration for the entity to agree to 
distribute, promote or use Microsoft Platform Software exclusively 
or in a fixed percentage. The settlement terms do not prohibit 
restricting the development or use of non-Microsoft products or 
services and interfering or degrading the performance of non-
Microsoft products or services. Yet such conduct is blatantly 
anticompetitive and entirely consistent with Microsoft's record of 
proven illegal conduct.
    The exception allowing exclusive or fixed percentage 
arrangements if Microsoft obtains a representation that it is 
``commercially practicable'' for the entity to provide 
equal or greater distribution of a competing product, should be 
eliminated. This loophole permits Microsoft to demand parity with 
any product that it considers a competitor in an agreement with a 
third party that promotes or distributes a competing product. As a 
proven monopolist, Microsoft should not be given what is effectively 
an affirmative right to demand that others carry its products. The 
opportunities for coercion are far too great.
    III.G.2
    The proposed settlement must be changed to prohibit Microsoft 
from entering into agreements with IAPs and ICPs that condition 
their placement on the Windows desktop on their agreement ``to 
distribute, promote or use any Microsoft product or service.'' 
See Litigating States' 6(e); Final Judgment 
3(e)(iv). The proposed settlement only prohibits 
agreements that condition placement of the IAP or ICP on the Windows 
desktop upon the IAP or ICP's refraining from promoting or using 
software that competes with Microsoft Middleware. This creates a 
loophole permitting Microsoft to condition desktop placement on the 
IAP or ICP agreeing to distribute, promote or use other Microsoft 
products or services exclusively. Given Microsoft's proven history 
of anticompetitive exclusionary conduct, it should be barred from 
any kind of exclusive dealing arrangement.
    The provision that permits exclusive dealing arrangements for 
joint ventures, joint developments or joint services arrangements 
should be deleted. It would permit Microsoft to avoid the general 
prohibitions on exclusive dealing, which are essential to restoring 
competition, merely by restructuring prohibited agreements as 
``joint ventures.'' Once again, if Microsoft believes it 
has a legitimate, procompetitive basis to enter into a true joint 
venture agreement, it can seek authorization to do so.
    The provision that excludes licensed-in intellectual property 
should be deleted. Like the ``joint venture'' loophole, it 
would allow Microsoft to evade the exclusive dealing ban by 
including in an agreement, licensed-in intellectual property of 
nominal value.
    g. ChanGes Must Math To RPFJ III.H (OEM/End User 
Control the Desktop)

[[Page 28622]]

    Section III.H focuses on OEMs' ability to offer and promote and 
end-users' ability to choose competing middleware products. Yet the 
provision undermines this purpose in several ways, including: (1) 
preventing either OEMs or end-users from removing Microsoft products 
from the operating system; (2) permitting Microsoft to override or 
alter OEM and end-user choices of competing middleware products; and 
(3) delaying the implementation of the provision to such an extent 
as to render it meaningless for a fifth of the lifespan of the 
decree. To remedy these flaws, the following changes are suggested:
    III.H
    The first sentence, which delays the applicability of the 
section for the earlier of 12 months after submission of the 
settlement to the Court or the release of the first service pack for 
Windows XP, should be revised to delete the introductory phrase. 
Microsoft should be required immediately to implement the changes 
necessary to comply with the OEM/end-user control provisions. This 
would also maximize the amount of time the provision is in force 
before the relief expires.
    The last sentence of this section, which follows the 
``Notwithstanding'' clause, should also be eliminated. All 
Microsoft Middleware Products should be required to comply with the 
substantive provisions of sections III.C and III.H. There is no 
justification for a temporal cut-off point of any kind (such as 
seven months prior to the last beta test of an operating system 
release, contained here) for new products, which should be developed 
with a focus on meeting, not evading, the requirements of the 
relief.
    III.H.1
    Subsection 1 allows OEMs and end-users to enable or disable the 
automatic invocation of a Microsoft middleware product or to remove 
the icon for that product. A subsection (c) should be added that 
allows end-users and OEMs to add or remove any Microsoft Middleware 
Product from the operating system, not just the icon for that 
product. The additional language will eliminate the problem of 
automatic invocation of Microsoft middleware under certain 
circumstances and open up hard drive space to add additional 
programs. This provision will only be effective, however, if there 
is a prohibition against the binding of middleware to the operating 
system.
    III.H.3
    The CIS states that section III.H.3 prevents automatic 
alteration of an OEM configuration (CIS at 48), but subsection 
III.H.3(b) undercuts this commitment. It would permit Microsoft to 
prompt an end-user to ``sweep the desktop'' of all 
selected icons and middleware choices 14 days after the initial 
boot-up of the computer and thereafter. Because of the possibility 
of consumer confusion, this has the potential to undo the very OEM 
and end-user control Section III.H is intended to allow. Subsection 
(b) therefore should be eliminated. There is no need for Microsoft 
ever to seek end-user confirmation that he or she wants to reverse 
an OEM configuration that includes competing products, or ever to 
prompt the end-user to ``sweep away'' all previous non-
Microsoft product choices.
    The ``Notwithstanding'' Clauses In This Provision Must 
Be Deleted
    The ``Notwithstanding'' clauses at the end of section 
III.H allow Microsoft to disregard OEM and consumer choice whenever 
Microsoft decides that its products must be invoked to operate with 
its servers or when the Non-Microsoft Middleware Product fails to 
implement a ``reasonable technical specification'' (a term 
that is left to Microsoft to define). The clauses should be 
eliminated in their entirety. The exceptions contained in these 
clauses are so broad that they threaten to render the substance of 
section III.H meaningless by permitting Microsoft to override an 
OEM's or end-user's middleware default choice at will.
    T. Changes Must Be Made To RPFJ III.I (Mandatory 
Licensing)
    The proposed settlement allows Microsoft to charge a royalty for 
the required license of technical information concerning 
interoperability, and to obtain a cross-license to the licensee's 
technical information used to interoperate with a Windows PC 
operating system or Microsoft Middleware. As the government 
recognized in the earlier remedy proceedings, royalty and cross-
licensing requirements are anticompetitive. Final Judgment 
3(i); see also Gov't D.Ct. Sum. Resp. at 14. As the 
Litigating States have proposed, Microsoft should be required to 
license the necessary technical information on a royalty-free basis, 
and without the tight to a cross-license from the licensee. 
Litigating States' 15.
    U. Changes Must Be Made To RPFJ III.J (Limitations 
on Mandatory Licensing)
    Section III.J of the proposed settlement is a loophole and must 
be deleted. All APIs, communications interfaces and technical 
information that must be disclosed to ensure interoperability serve, 
at least in part, an authentication or encryption function related 
to the security of the operating system. Microsoft should not be 
given an excuse to withhold disclosure of crucial technical 
information for potentially anticompetitive purposes. Neither the 
Final Judgment nor the Litigating States' proposal contains a 
similar provision.
    V. Changes Must Be Made To RPFJ IV And V 
(Compliance And Enforcement)
    In contrast to the proposed settlement, certain aspects of the 
Litigating States' proposal would be far more effective in ensuring 
that the intent and spirit of the final relief entered in this 
action be effectively enforced:
    As mandated by the Antitrust Division Manual and conceded by the 
government as being ``customary in antitrust actions'' 
(Gov't D.Ct. Sum. Resp. at 20), the final decree should remain in 
effect for ten years, not five, as prescribed by RPFJ 
V. See Litigating States' 21 (b); Final 
Judgment 6(c).
    Pursuant to Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the 
Court should appoint a Special Master, who would be in a position to 
immediately report violations directly to the Court and also 
periodically report to the Court regarding Microsoft's compliance 
with its obligations, instead of the Technical Committee prescribed 
by the proposed decree. See Litigating States' 18.
    Any decree should set forth specific sanctions for different 
levels of violations and impose a strict, rapid, no-nonsense 
timetable for the formal resolution of all complaints about 
Microsoft's conduct. See Litigating States' 18(f).
    A critical deficiency in the proposed settlement is the lack of 
a requirement that anyone at Microsoft, including its designated 
Internal Compliance Officer, certify periodically to the Court that 
Microsoft is in compliance with its obligations. Indeed, no one is 
in a better position than Microsoft to know whether it is in 
compliance. For these reasons, the Court should require that any 
decree include a self-reporting requirement, providing that a senior 
executive of Microsoft certify periodically under oath to the Court 
that Microsoft is in compliance with its obligations, Such a 
provision would further ensure that Microsoft takes its obligations 
seriously.
    Instead of limiting training in the decree to officers and 
directors (RPFJ IV.C.3.a), the provision must require 
officers, directors and all other employees that are in positions 
that enable them to initiate or implement anticompetitive conduct to 
read, understand and comply with the decree, as is customary in 
antitrust consent decrees. See Litigating States' 
17(c); Final Judgment 4(e).
    W. Changes Must Be Made To RPFJ VI (Definitions)
    The way the proposed settlement defines key terms significantly 
restricts, and in many instances eliminates, the effect of the 
proposed settlement's substantive provisions. SBC generally 
recommends the adoption of the definitions contained in the 
Litigating States' proposal 22. Some of the problems 
posed by the proposed settlement's definitions relating to 
middleware are as follows:
    The definition of``Microsoft Middleware'' in section 
VI.J must be eliminated. The term is defined in so restrictive a way 
that it would exclude, among other things, any middleware which is 
bound to the operating system or as to which Microsoft has not 
sought trademark protection. It should be replaced with a 
straightforward definition that applies to middleware irrespective 
of whether it is Microsoft or non-Microsoft middleware, such as the 
definition of Middleware contained in the Final Judgment 
7(q). See also Litigating States' 22(w).
    The proposed settlement's definition in section VI.K of 
``Microsoft Middleware Product'' limits what are 
considered Microsoft middleware products to specific categories of 
products. It should be replaced by Litigating States' proposal 
22(x), which is both a broader and more accurate 
description of a Microsoft Middleware Product, as it accounts for 
both middleware products currently in existence and products that 
will be developed in the future.
    Subsection (ii) of the definition of``Non-Microsoft 
Middleware Product'' requires that one million copies of the 
product be distributed in the previous year for the product to be 
considered a competing middleware product. See RPFJ 
VI.N. This definitional limitation excludes new 
competing products from a number of the proposed settlement's 
protections, including those relating to the important OEM 
distribution channel.

[[Page 28623]]

    The last sentence of the definition of ``Windows Operating 
System Product'' grants Microsoft ``sole discretion'' 
to determine what constitutes a Windows Operating System Product, 
and should be deleted. See RPFJ VI.U. The definition 
should be objective and should roughly correspond to the definition 
of ``Operating System Product'' in the Final Judgment 
7(v). The definition of ``Windows Operating System 
Product'' should also include prior versions of Windows, 
including Windows 95 and Windows 98, as well as versions of 
Microsoft's operating system developed for non-PC products, such as 
Windows CE. See Litigating States' 22(rr).
    VI. CONCLUSION
    For the reasons stated herein, the proposed settlement with 
Microsoft is contrary to the public interest and should be 
substantially modified or rejected entirely.
    January 28, 2002
    Respectfully submitted,
    PAUL K. MANGINI Vice President & Assistant General Counsel
    PATRICK J. PASCARELLA Senior Counsel
    WILLIAM R. CALDWELL Senior Counsel
    SBC COMMUNICATIONS INC.
    175 East Houston
    San Antonio, Texas 78205
    DONALD L. FLEXNER
    DAVID A. BARRETT
    STEVEN I. FROOT
    NICHOLAS A. GRAVANTE, JR.
    HARLAN A. LEVY
    BORES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
    5301 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W.
    Washington, DC 20015
    Telephone: (202) 237-;2727
    Facsimile: (202) 237-;6131
From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:49pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    As part of the public comment on the proposed Microsoft 
settlement, I am objecting to the prosecution of Microsoft by the 
Department of Justice and the various Attorney Generals' offices. I 
understand that with a gun to its head Microsoft wants this 
settlement. However, the settlement is unjust. As a consumer, 
Microsoft has benefited me. Sometimes I buy Microsoft, but not 
always. I use operating systems and browsers produced by other 
companies. However, Microsoft's leadership in creating software that 
has been selected by the marketplace as the dominant products 
created a computing revolution that has changed my life through 
higher income. In contrast, the government's prosecution of 
Microsoft has harmed me.
    The club-fisted actions by the government in this matter have 
adversely affected the development of products that would have 
benefited me. First, the government's attack on Microsoft distracted 
their expansion in the enterprise server software market which is 
dominated by companies that have supported the government's efforts. 
Resources Microsoft could have been used to enhance products that 
would have benefited me professionally were diverted to pay for 
attorneys instead of programmers. Second, the government's attack on 
Microsoft caused the high tech meltdown in the economy by depressing 
the equity markets. Consequently, jobs were lost and innovative 
products never made it to market.
    Because of the coercion used by the government, I have several 
objections to the proposed settlement.
    First, the settlement imposes restrictions on Microsoft's 
ability to make contracts. This infringement on Microsoft's right to 
enter contracts on its own terms is akin to the ``badges of 
slavery'' prohibited by the 13th Amendment. Consequently, while 
Microsoft retains title to its property, the government is 
specifying the terms under which it may exercise its own property. 
Thus, our government is pursuing fascist economic policies that 
obliterate the rights of private property.
    Second, the settlement mandates the disclosure of proprietary 
information by Microsoft. This attack on intellectual property 
rights undermines our economy. Further, it contradicts the foreign 
policy of our government that seeks to protect the intellectual 
property rights of Americans abroad. Although there is some recourse 
to prevent the dissemination of information affecting security, the 
settlement makes no adequate provisions for resolving disputes 
between Microsoft and the government on these security claims to 
protect consumers. Therefore, this settlement puts the property and 
privacy of Microsoft customers in jeopardy.
    Third, this settlement infringes constitutional protections 
Microsoft, and all Americans, have from unreasonable searches. The 
presence of government agents in the Microsoft facility at the 
company's expense with unlimited access to confidential Microsoft 
information is an affront to our sense of ordered liberties. If this 
settlement were instead a warrant, the court would deny it as overly 
broad and unreasonable. In addition, the settlement does not specify 
sanctions against the government for potential violations of the 
confidentiality agreements.
    Finally, if the government was serious about the danger 
Microsoft pose to consumers, the Justice Department and the state 
Attorney Generals' offices should have promised to not use Microsoft 
products during the term of the settlement. That would let the 
government work in an environment of incompatible software products 
that the market has freely chosen to avoid. In summary, the 
government's prosecution of Microsoft and this settlement is a 
threat to our individual liberty because it permits the government 
to destroy the wealth created by our citizens arbitrarily.
    Jim Woods
    21560 Iredell Terr.
    Ashburn, VA 20148
From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 28, 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Please register my emphatic opposition to the subject Proposed 
Final Judgement (PFJ) [in re the conjoined Civil Actions No. 
98-;1232 (CKK) and 98-;1233 (CKK), collectively termed the 
Microsoft Antitrust Case]. My reasons for opposing this PFJ are 
based upon review and thoughtful consideration of the following:
    a) Microsoft's extensive and consistent record of gross 
anticompetitive abuses in the software industry that gravely harmed 
competitors, eliminated consumer freedom of choice, and erected 
illegal barriers to innovation by competitors--;abuses for which 
Microsoft has been adjudicated to be guilty of violations of the 
Sherman Antitrust Act in this Case--;which Microsoft will gladly 
continue;
    b) the provisions of the PFJ, which appear on the surface to 
offer substantive remedies but in fact, upon careful reading, 
provide no effective or enforcable restrictions to prevent Microsoft 
from continuing its anticompetive practices to extend its monopoly 
illegally - precisely the offense that requires remedy;
    c) the glaring omissions of the PFJ, which is blind to current 
conditions in the software industry and Microsoft's continuing 
predatory tactics there and in contiguous markets such as Internet 
enabled ecommerce, mass media delivery and digital rights 
management, and definition of worldwide network standards, and which 
further offers no forward looking constraints to prevent Microsoft 
from proliferating such oppressions of suppliers, customers, 
competitors, and ultimately consumers and fair markets both within 
the US and internationally. Microsoft has proven that it is willing 
to use any means or pretense to avoid or circumvent restrictions on 
its practices (see the earlier Consent Decree). Microsoft is like a 
twice-convicted burgler proposing to bargain for parole by promising 
not to commit burglary again--;except if (i) the front door is 
open, (ii) a window is unlocked, or (iii) the back door can be 
jimmied open easily. Microsoft can't be trusted to abide by any 
restrictions on its business acts in good faith. The Judgement of 
the Court should therefore be in imperative terms without any 
loopholes Microsoft can use to subvert the Court's intent. 
Unfortunately, the PFJ is as far from such a clear standard as 
Microsoft might wish. No wonder Microsoft agreed to this. Far from 
offering even minimally adequate remedies, the PFJ is a perverse 
gift to Microsoft in that it would enshrine in a legal settlement 
the permission to continue, extend, and expand Microsoft's predatory 
actions and anticompetitive behaviors. For every declaration of 
prohibited future conduct or requirements to treat other market 
players and consumers fairly there are entire paragraphs and 
clauses, definitions and exclusions, which Microsoft can and 
predictably will employ to subvert both the letter and intent of 
these supposed remedies.
    Furthermore, the face-to-face contact between Steve Ballmer (he 
is Microsoft's CEO and President) and Dick Cheney (Vice President of 
the US) as negotiations were ongoing to draft the PFJ but not 
reported by either party in violation of the Tunney Act,

[[Page 28624]]

deserve censure of both sides by the Court, if not appointment of a 
Special Prosecutor to investigate political and adminstrative 
corruption.
    Don't sell the software industry down the river, allow a 
monomaniacal company to unfairly wield its monopoly to take over 
several additional sectors of the economy, destabilize international 
standards for interoperability in ecommerce and communications, and 
continue to prey upon businesses, marketplaces, and consumers 
worldwide. Reject this PFJ. Write a fitting Judgement, with teeth!
    Respectfully submitted,
    Robert A. Munro
    U.S. Citizen
From: Rick Hornbeck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I have attached three documents that explain my position on the 
Microsoft Antitrust Case, along with a proposed solution. I also 
attached a copy of my resume to establish my credibility and to 
assist you in determining the value that you should place on my 
recommendations. I do not believe that the Technical Committee will 
have the necessary access to key Microsoft personnel or the 
enforcement authority, either directly or indirectly, to make a 
difference.
    Although the Proposed Settlement contains several good measures 
for curtailing some of Microsoft's anti-competitive actions, it does 
not go far enough.
    I believe that the solution I propose in the first attached 
document will level the playing field to the degree needed to make a 
long-term positive impact.
    Regards,
    Rick Hornbeck
    Hornbeck Consulting
    556 S. Fair Oaks Ave., Suite 346
    Pasadena, CA 91105
    Rick--;[email protected]
    (cell) + 1 323 363-;2151
    (efax) + 1 208 275-;1245
    January 28, 2002
U.S. Department of Justice
    Anti-trust Division
    [email protected]
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am writing to convey my proposed solution to the Microsoft 
anti-trust case. The dilemma is how to prevent Microsoft from using 
its monopolistic power in the future, to weaken competition, 
consumer choice, and innovation. Breakup along product lines is 
problematic due to Microsoft's successful public relations 
disinformation campaign Microsoft has astutely intertwined its 
various products so tightly that any breakup of the corporation is 
unrealistic, if it occurs along product lines, requiring each new 
organization to become its own, independent profit center. At least 
that is what Microsoft would have us believe.
    Although such a restructuring is possible, Microsoft's argument 
would be that it would reduce the value of each product by 
approximately 30% because it would eliminate the benefits derived 
from their capability to ``interconnect,'' and exchange 
data `seamlessly.'' In my opinion, this interconnectivity 
argument is flawed, as virtually the same quantity and quality of 
interconnectivity has existed amongst Microsoft's products for 
many years. Microsoft is notorious for inflating the value of its 
product's features in the media, in advertising, and in supposedly 
objective articles written by shills in technical journals. However, 
it has failed to introduce significant new interconnectivity feature 
enhancements over the past few years, and it is unlikely that any 
new advancements or features in this area are forthcoming.
    In addition, the other major vendors in the desktop software 
market already offer the same level of interconnectivity between 
their own products and Microsoft's products, in the only area that 
really matters--;cutting-and-pasting between applications. 
Nevertheless, any government or court-ordered solution must confront 
Microsoft's strong public relations and marketing machine, which 
means that the product line-based breakup model is at best a steep, 
uphill battle.
    Proposed alternative solution--;impose structural changes to 
Microsoft's business processes, not its organization.
    My recommended solution requires looking at the situation from a 
different perspective--;instead of imposing structural changes 
on the organization, impose structural changes to Microsoft's 
business processes.
    My recommended solution is as follows:
    1. Require Microsoft to develop and support versions of its 
major office products that are fully functional on other popular, 
current and future operating systems, such as Linux, Java, and Mac 
OS;
    2. Until item (1) is achieved, impose a moratorium on the 
development and release of the following:
    a. New Microsoft operating systems or significant upgrades to 
existing operating systems (except for security-related enhancements 
or upgrades);
    b. Internet Explorer browser (except for security-related 
enhancements or upgrades);
    c. Office suite product upgrades (except for security-related 
enhancements or upgrades).
    3. Obviously this approach will impose a significant burden on 
the court or its designated representative to develop and rigorously 
apply a method for monitoring Microsoft's development activities, 
both at its own facilities, and at its subcontractor's facilities. 
Nevertheless, I believe this approach, although not without its 
challenges, is reasonable and realistic, and, if properly enforced, 
through a process or mandatory quarterly reporting to the court, is 
likely to achieve the desired objective.
    Some amount of financial profit from the licensing of its 
products on alternative operating systems is appropriate, as further 
encouragement for Microsoft's enthusiastic cooperation.
    This letter represents a rough outline of my proposal. If you 
would like to discuss it further, please feel free to contact me. 
You are free to use my ideas that I have enclosed in this letter in 
your prosecution of Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior, or in a 
related matter.
    Regards,
    Rick Hornbeck
    Rick Hornbeck, M.S., J.D.
    Hornbeck Consulting
    556 S. Fair Oaks Ave., Suite 346
    Pasadena, CA 91105
    (cell) 323-;363-;2151
    THE TROUBLING TRUTH ABOUT ``TRUST'' ON THE INTERNET
    An objective survey of the security risks associated with 
ActiveX and its impact on Microsoft's share of the Web browser 
market.
    (by Rick Hornbeck, M.S., J.D. 1997)* BACKGROUND
    Where did ActiveX Come From and Why Doesn't It Go Away?
    By now it is generally accepted that Microsoft and Netscape are 
engaged in a great World-Wide-Web (WWW) browser war. It is also 
generally understood that Microsoft's almost limitless revenue from 
its Windows operating system software and related products will 
allow it to keep giving it's Internet Explorer browser away free for 
the next 20 years, while Netscape has to charge customers for it's 
products. What is less well understood is why ActiveX and the 
Authenticode securitymodel represent the other two prongs of 
Microsoft's Internet marketing strategy.
    As recently as early 1995 Microsoft was still unsure of the 
Internet's significance and the role it would play in the PC desktop 
market. Microsoft believed it could continue its phenomenal year-on-
year profit growth relying solely on new sales and paid for upgrades 
of its existing products. However, these sales must in turn rely on 
its ability to maintain its grip and influence on the distribution 
channel, on the corporate purchasers, the original equipment 
manufacturers (OEMs) and on the standards process. (For example, 
according to the Microsoft 1996 Annual Report, OEM channel revenues 
were $1.18 billion in 1994, $1.65 billion in 1995, and $2.50 billion 
in 1996.)The primary source of OEM revenues is the licensing of 
desktop operating systems. As such, Microsoft's OEM channel revenues 
are highly dependent on Windows-compatible PC shipment volume. 
During 1995 armies of software developers and consumers launched a 
blitzkrieg against Microsoft's PC desktop dominion, penetrating the 
Windows defenses everywhere with dynamically distributed Java 
applets and gaining over 70% of the market for Internet browsers.
    Microsoft quickly realized that the confluence of Java with 
Netscape's browsers had the makings of a platform-independent de-
facto industry standard, which would empower users to buy more non-
``Wintel'' (Windows operating system on an Intel 
processor) desktop PCs. The Internet gave Microsoft a vision of it's 
impending mortality. In response, on Pearl Harbor Day, December 7, 
1995, Bill Gates declared war, announcing that ``[t]oday, the 
Internet is the primary driver of the new work we're doing across 
our entire product line.''
    The Microsoft Web servers took 8,000,000 hits on the first day 
of their campaign. After his two-hour public presentation Gates told 
National Public Radio in an interview, ``Well, we've got to 
make sure that we're leading the

[[Page 28625]]

way on the opportunities the Internet represents.'' 
``Netscape has two great strengths,'' Gates admitted. 
``They've got very high browser market share, and they've got 
the attention of the world .... It's very important to increase the 
popularity of our browser.''
    Microsoft executive vice president Steve Ballmer put it bluntly 
when he said, ``[h]ave no confusion in your head: Job one for 
us right now is the Internet and defeating Netscape.'' Of his 
Mountain View, Calif., rival in Internet software, Ballmer says, 
``They're simply our smartest competitor.''
    It was against this backdrop that Microsoft launched its 
triumvirate Internet marketing strategy, using the parasitic 
relationship between Authenticode and ActiveX to increase the 
popularity of Internet Explorer.
    INTRODUCTION
    ActiveX and Java are ``mini-programs'' that can be 
downloaded from a Web site and executed directly on a user's PC. 
Unfortunately ActiveX mini-programs, or ``components'' or 
``controls'' can reformat a user's hard drive, or copy 
personal files to a remote server on the Internet, or do any number 
of harmful things to a user's PC without the user's authorization or 
knowledge. A malicious hacker or terrorist could write one of these 
downloadable and executable programs and the user-victim has no 
reasonable way of either stopping it's attack once the control has 
gained access to their PC or reliably preventing it from gaining 
access in the first place.
    The user has several ``unreasonable'' means of 
minimizing her risk: she can permanently disconnect her PC from the 
Internet, depriving herself of its benefits. She could browse only 
those Web sites that she ``knows'' do not contain harmful 
or malicious controls (``safe zones''), although the 
possibility of a hacker either spoofing a Web site, or covertly 
placing harmful controls into a ``known'' Web site exists. 
She could configure her Internet Explorer browser to prevent all 
ActiveX controls from downloading to her PC, and hope she does not 
encounter one that is able to bypass her browser's security 
configuration, which has been demonstrated in practice. Finally, she 
could take her chances using Microsoft's ``Authenticode,'' 
or Netscape's or Sun Microsystems'' ``code-signing'', 
trust-based security models that use public-key digital signatures 
and independent third-party Certification Authorities (CAs). Each of 
these unreasonable alternatives represents a different point on the 
risk/benefit scale which each user should consider before exploring 
the WWW.
    However, this analysis is only necessary because Microsoft 
created a previously non-existent security risk by introducing 
ActiveX. As will be explained below, other software tools exist to 
provide software developers with the same capabilities as ActiveX, 
with virtually no security risk. Still, Microsoft has successfully 
obfuscated the seriousness of these self-created security issues and 
successfully redirected consumers attention' away from Netscape and 
Java. In doing so Microsoft has also successfully achieved its goal 
of creating the perception, in a very short period of time, that it 
is a player in the Internet game.
    Because ActiveX does not contain its own internal security 
mechanism to restrict the actions of the program, Microsoft was able 
to introduce the Authenticode trust model as a viable protection 
solution. Because Authenticode uses public-key digital signatures in 
combination with trusted third-party Certification Authorities, and 
only runs on Internet Explorer, Microsoft sought to ``increase 
the popularity of its browser'' by touting its use of this 
``cutting-edge'' technology as evidence of its leadership 
in the Internet software industry. At the same time it actively 
castigated Netscape and other browser vendors for allegedly leaving 
their users vulnerable to the hazards of ActiveX. Unfortunately, the 
people that suffer from this Machiavellian marketing strategy the 
most are the innocent netizens who ``reasonably'' allow 
unproved and potentially dangerous controls to be downloaded to 
their PCs leaving themselves vulnerable to the vagaries of malicious 
programmers.
    It would be too harsh to accuse Bill Gates of raising Microsoft 
to is position of dominance through villainy or malice against his 
customers, given the trends of modern business practices. However, 
his continued promotion of Authenticode without acknowledging its 
serious security defects would seem to indicate that its 
effectiveness in mitigating security risks is subordinated to 
creating the impression that Microsoft is a leader in the Internet/
Electronic Commerce industry. According to Eric Schmidt, Novell CEO, 
``if Bill Gates continues with his strategies he could become 
the most powerful person in the world, and that's not necessarily a 
good thing.'' Simson Garfinkel wrote recently, 
``Microsoft's ActiveX technology is the single greatest 
technological threat to the future of the World Wide Web. 
Microsoft's ActiveX promoters are either so blinded by their own 
rhetoric that they don't see the danger of this new technology, or 
else they are so cynical that they would destroy the very essence of 
the Internet rather than compromise their market dominance.''
    In a different industry, Microsoft's actions could be analogous 
to a pharmaceutical/bio-engineering company releasing a virus or 
disease into the general population so it could profit from the sale 
of its potential cure. At the same time the pharmaceutical company 
could also enhance its reputation by advertising that it's anti-
virus was created through the use of cutting-edge genetic 
engineering techniques thereby establishing itself as a leader in 
this field. However, for this analogy to be consistent the anti-
virus must only be effective for a small percentage of the 
population. The rest of those exposed to the virus would remain 
susceptible to its deadly effects at any time.
    This article will explore the very real damage that can be 
caused by harmful ActiveX controls, it will explain how Authenticode 
is supposed to mitigate these security risks, and why it does not. 
It will also explain why digital signature technology as currently 
applied under the Authenticode model cannot assist most users in 
adequately reducing their risk of injury from ActiveX because it 
does not provide the user with the necessary means of assessing 
whether or not the software they are considering downloading is 
``safe.'' Bill Gates' vision of the future is a seamless 
integration of the Internet, the World-Wide-Web and the Windows 
operating system. According to Gates, when someone wants to e-mail a 
spreadsheet or other file to someone else over the Internet, they 
are not interested in going out and buying 14 different products to 
make sure the file will be compatible with the recipient's software. 
Instead what they want is a desktop environment that can provide 
spreadsheet and any other kind of robust functionality, without 
concern for the software or hardware on which it operates.
    Most Internet software developers' share this vision 
however they don't share Gates' vision for implementing it, 
Microsoft believes this seamless integration should be based on 
Windows and Microsoft's Internet Explorer (IE) browser whereas the 
rest of the software industry favors Java because of its true 
platform-independence. Today Java can run on virtually any hardware 
or software platform in existence, including such varied platforms 
as IBM mainframes and Personal Digital Assistants (PDA's).
    Yet Microsoft continues increasing the popularity of its 
proprietary browser by:
    Marketing the benefits of ActiveX while simultaneously cross-
marketing Internet Explorer (IE) because IE is the only platform 
capable of directly running ActiveX controls;
    Continuing to give its IE browser away for free;
    . Failing to live up to its promises made in the fall of 1996, 
to disclose ActiveX's specifications to an independent standards 
body, thereby preventing other browser manufacturer's from 
supporting it in their products;
    . Marketing IE as the only means available for user's to 
purportedly protect themselves from the potential damage threatened 
by its own hazard, ActiveX, and
    . Cross-marketing Authenticode as a general-purpose Internet 
security solution, thereby further reinforcing the perceived need 
for IE, because it is the only browser capable of supporting 
Authenticode.
    A BRIEF COMPARISON AND CONTRAST BETWEEN ActiveX, JAVA AND 
PLUGINS.
    (1) Origin of ActiveX
    ActiveX adds to the user's Internet Explorer-based Web browsing 
experience by ``jump-starting'' Web site content, 
providing a variety of multimedia effects, enhanced page layouts, 
and executable applications, all of which are downloaded and run in 
real-time over the Internet. According to Microsoft, over 1,000 
ActiveX controls already have been written in C, C++ and other 
languages for applications such as audio, video and live chat, all 
of which complement the core technologies of today's Web environment 
such as HTML, plugins, Java, cgi scripts and more.
    According to Fred Langa, writing in Windows Magazine, ActiveX is 
``... the fifth and most recent step in a long-developing 
evolution [by Microsoft Laboratories] of data-sharing and 
interoperability among applications.'' Essentially it is a 
trimmed down version of Microsoft's OLE (Object Linking and 
Embedding) system which a Windows ``power'' user will 
recall enables

[[Page 28626]]

several applications to collaborate on a single ``compound 
document.'' For example, OLE provides the ``glue'' 
that allows data to be copied from a WORD document and pasted into a 
PowerPoint document. The PowerPoint document can then be inserted 
into an Excel document and later opened as a PowerPoint document 
from within the Excel document. ActiveX is the next step in the 
development of this seamless interaction amongst applications. 
However, where ``Distributed OLE'' only lets the user 
share data, links and control over a local or wide-are network, 
ActiveX has taken the technological ``leap'' into 
Cyberspace by enabling the user to share data, application links and 
control between a Web page on the Internet and the user's Internet 
Explorer browser running on his PC. Java has taken the same leap but 
with much less risk to the user.
    ActiveX controls automatically download and install themselves, 
and they persist (remain available) on a user's system. This feature 
provides two advantages over other programs: the user doesn't have 
to download and install software manually, and she only has to 
download the control once. This is good news to those who don't like 
waiting for controls to download every time they visit a certain 
site. However, these controls can be downloaded without user 
awareness or consent which means the user doesn't know what she is 
downloading.
    (2) JAVA
    Java applets can be thought of in the same way but with some 
important differences. Java applets run either inside the Java 
Virtual Machine (JVM), a software application that is built into 
newer browsers, or they can be run separately using the Java 
Development Kit (JDK). The JDK is a sort of software interpreter 
that converts Java code into code that is recognizable by the 
particular platform on which it is running. JDKs are now available 
for virtually all software and hardware platforms in existence. 
However, because JDK is another layer of software between Java and 
the actual operating system, Java tends to run more slowly. 
``The major fear is that Java is not going to have the 
performance it promises, and its going to fade away like a bad TV 
show.'' Built into both the JVM and the JDK is a set of 
security controls colloquially called the ``sandbox.'' 
Java's security model automatically prevents any code from accessing 
portions of the operating system or the PC hardware that is outside 
the parameters of the ``sandbox.'' In other words if a 
Java applet wants to ``play'' on your PC it has to keep 
its toys inside the sandbox. In contrast, ActiveX controls are not 
restricted, which means they have direct access to the PC hardware, 
software and operating system. As a result, ActiveX controls run 
faster and do more, but at a substantial price in security. Also, 
because ActiveX controls are distributed in native binary code, 
separate controls have to be written for each operating system. Java 
applets, on the other hand are distributed in a one-size-fits-all or 
``write once, run anywhere'' fashion meaning that 
developers only have to produce one version to run on any platform.
    (3) Plug-ins
    A third means of ``activating'' a Web site is through 
the use of Netscape ``plugins.'' Both Netscape and 
Internet Explorer browsers are packaged from the factory with a 
built-in set of ``standard'' features such as graphics 
viewers, which a Web site developer can then take advantage by 
including graphics in his Web site. However, in order for a Netscape 
browser to take advantage of any non-standard features which the Web 
site developer has programmed into his Web site, the 
``plugin'' version of the entire application that is used 
to run it must first be downloaded to the user's PC from the 
developer's Web site and then executed. This is because the 
application is not embedded with the program, as in the case of 
ActiveX.
    For example, assume that both an ActiveX control and a non-
ActiveX program using plugin technology are created to enable users 
to download and view a short animation sequence from a commercial 
Web site. The ActiveX developer will include both the animation 
sequence and the ``viewer'' program in the same control. 
However, the developer using plugin technology must create a built-
in hyperlink in the code to the viewer developer's Web site. When 
the user clicks on the link on the Web site to view the animation 
sequence, the code will automatically notify the user that she must 
go to the vendor's Web site and manually download the entire 
``viewer'' software application before she can see the 
animation. ActiveX components are inherently much smaller because 
they contain only a limited subset of the entire application needed 
to perform the function at hand, and therefore can be downloaded 
more quickly. Once the ActiveX component is resident on the user's 
PC it can be reused, on-demand precluding future downloads.
    According to Microsoft, the excessive amount of time needed by a 
user to download the actual application ``plugin'' file 
(.exe) poses a significant deterrent to the use of Netscape's 
browsers. However, as described in an article in the May 27, 1997 
issue of Fortune magazine, Netscape's new Communicator browsers will 
also automatically install ``plugins.''
    ACTIVEX's SECURITY DEFECTS ARE ``GENETICALLY 
INHERITED''
    Because ActiveX is the product of many years of ongoing research 
and development at Microsoft laboratories it represents the latest 
in a long line of remarkable software technologies. However its 
predecessors, OLE and COM, have burdened ActiveX with their 
``genetic blueprint,'' legacy code written for earlier 
generations of software and hardware platforms. In other words this 
latest progeny is constrained by its ``gene pool'' 
consisting of thousands of lines of code which have accumulated over 
the course of years of development and evolution and over which 
ActiveX is unable to break free. The most significant constraint 
imposed on ActiveX by this genetic blueprint is a deficient security 
model. According to Microsoft:
    We are doing everything possible to create the technical 
safeguards that will make software safe. However, in order to remove 
trust from the equation, we would have to rip away significant 
amounts of functionality [read: code that could actually be 
rewritten to more closely fit the needs of the modern Internet 
environment] that users rely on today. Since the purpose of our 
industry is to provide more value and power to users, rather than 
limiting functionality, Microsoft and most other major software 
manufacturers are advocating a trust-based security model. [read: we 
could rewrite it if we wanted to but because it doesn't suit our 
interests we won't]
    This ``genetic'' deficiency allows ActiveX controls to 
interact without constraint with both the operating system and the 
PC hardware. In a sense, it is as if ActiveX was born without an 
auto-immune system, making it incapable of combating viruses or 
malicious programming written by evil programmers that might invade 
the control and use it to enter and harm an innocent, unsuspecting 
host.
    ActiveX's predecessors did not have to be concerned with such an 
auto-immune system because they were virtually guaranteed of living 
out their lives in a ``sterile'' environment. In other 
words, prior to the advent of the Internet the operating environment 
in which PC software was executed was always under the complete and 
exclusive control of the PC user. Each user was able to decide 
whether they wanted to load a particular program on to their PC, and 
once loaded whether and when to execute it. This environment 
remained ``sterile'' regardless of whether or not the PC 
was a standalone or networked because no external source, including 
a network operating system could place something onto the users PC 
without his or his network administrator's permission.
    Today, however, through the wonders of downloadable and 
executable software technologies, a program can automatically 
download to a user's PC from a Web site or a network server and 
execute without the user's awareness or consent. Thus, the operating 
environment in which Microsoft's next generation software tool is 
living is completely different than the environment of its 
forefathers. Yet Microsoft has chosen not to take this congenital 
auto-immune deficiency seriously and has failed to reengineer 
ActiveX's ``DNA'' to create a reasonable security model 
thus leaving users vulnerable to exposure to the dangerous code. 
Such an unprotected and infected control acts like a cyber 
``Typhoid Mary'' as it infects everyone it meets with the 
virus of harmful code. By way of explanation, suppose Mr. And Mrs. 
Jones owned and lived in a house during the same time the Microsoft 
software engineers were developing the ancestors of ActiveX. Mr. 
Jones worked diligently on his house, making improvements and 
refinements so it would be more comfortable for he and his wife. Now 
suppose Mr. And Mrs. Jones decide they want to start a family and 
Mr. Jones asks a contractor for a cost estimate to build a second-
story bedroom. The contractor tells the Jones'' that because 
their house was built using an ``A frame'' design a second 
story cannot be added. Thus, the Jones'' are constrained from 
meeting their needs for another bedroom by the limitations of their 
house's original design, which did not take into consideration the 
future need for a second story. Similarly, ActiveX is

[[Page 28627]]

constrained from incorporating a security model by the limitations 
imposed on it by the software designs of its predecessors.
    However, if Bill Gates were the owner of this ``A 
frame'' and he wanted to add a second story because he and his 
wife wanted to start a family, he could easily afford to tear down 
the existing structure and build whatever design fits his current 
needs. Similarly, Mr. Gates and Microsoft have the resources to re-
write ActiveX or develop a replacement. Indeed, one can only 
speculate why he has chosen not to develop an Internet software 
product that fits the current needs of his customers, given that the 
environment in which his software executes (the Internet) has 
changed, and is now ``open'' and ``insecure.'' 
Without providing an answer to this rhetorical question, Jesse Berst 
also observes in PC Week, ``ActiveX is.. the key to its future. 
Microsoft will be damned before it acknowledges that ActiveX has a 
security problem.'' Berst goes on to explain that 
``[r]ather than help users understand and minimize the risks 
[associated with ActiveX], Microsoft contented itself with pointing 
out that similar problems were theoretically possible with Netscape 
products.'' Quoting PC Week Editorial Director and former 
director of PC Week Labs, David Berlind, Berst writes, 
``Frankly, I want to puke.'' Microsoft will not give up 
ActiveX because it is the key to ``Increas(ing) the popularity 
of its browser.'' Without ActiveX there would be no need for 
Authenticode, and without Authenticode and ActiveX there would be no 
way of significantly distinguishing IE from a Netscape browser, 
except that it is given away at no immediate up-front cost.
    THE AUTHENTICODE SOLUTION--;Myth and Reality
    (1) The Myth
    In his article Jesse Berst explains that Authenticode is 
``... like requiring people who send mail bombs to put their 
names on the package.'' Were that approach effective, even the 
alleged ``Unabomber'' would have been apprehended many 
years earlier, because according to news reports many of his mail 
bombs had postmarks from the small town where he lived. Obviously 
this approach is ineffective because the names would be blown up, 
just as any evidence of an Authenticode digital certificate could 
also be destroyed by a malicious ActiveX program after causing other 
damage to a user's PC. And yet on August 7, 1996 a Verisign Press 
Release quoted Verisign president and CEO Stratton Sclavos as 
stating, ``With this service, users can feel confident that the 
quotes Sclavos as stating that, ``Under the Authenticode 
program, developers must go through an application and verification 
process to ensure that certificates are issued only to the 
appropriate party. This eliminates any worry that developers could 
be falsely represented by an impostor.''
    Microsoft's Authenticode security model requires that all 
software developers (commercial and independent) must register their 
ActiveX components with a Certification Authority such as Verisign, 
before Internet Explorer browsers will allow them to be downloaded 
to a user's PC from a Web site, if the browser's security setting is 
on ``High.'' The software developer must 
``legally'' affirm that to the best of his knowledge the 
control is incapable of causing damage to a user's PC. Verisign 
issues the developer either an electronic ``individual Software 
Publisher's Certificate'' or an electronic ``Commercial 
Software Publisher's Certificate'' depending on whether they 
are registering as an individual or corporate software developer. 
Different identity verification criteria are used to establish the 
developer's identity depending on the type of certificate requested.
    One way Microsoft successfully propagates the Authenticode myth 
is through contradictory and vague announcements and bulletins. The 
following excerpts demonstrate the range of conflicting statements 
about Authenticode that come from both Verisign and Microsoft 
management.
    The following excerpt from Verisign's Web site explains the 
service it provides to its customers:
    When customers buy software in a store, the source of that 
software is obvious.
    Customers can tell who published the software, and they can see 
whether the package has been opened. These factors, along with 
others, enable customers to make judgments about what software to 
purchase and use, and how much to ``trust'' those products 
and the companies and individuals who publish them. When customers 
download software from the Internet, all they see (at most) is a 
message warning them about the dangers of using the software. The 
Internet lacks the subtle information provided by packaging, shelf 
space, shrink wrap, and the like. Without an assurance of the 
software's integrity, and without knowing who published the 
software, it's difficult for customers to know how much to trust 
software. It's difficult to make the choice of downloading the 
software from the Internet.
    Verisign Digital IDs in conjunction with Authenticode (software 
validation) technology provide customers with the information and 
assurance they need when downloading software from the Internet. 
Authenticode communicates to customers the real identity of the 
publisher and assures them that the product has not been altered or 
damaged. (emphasis added) Contrast this language with the statement 
of Cornelius Willis, Microsoft's group product manager-Internet 
developer marketing, ``Authenticode does not guarantee that 
users will never download malicious code to their PC .... We don't 
claim ActiveX is a (a) The Problems of Establishing Identity in 
Cyberspace The advantage of knowing the publisher's true identity is 
that if provides the relying party with recourse in the event the 
software turns out to be ``harmful.'' In the physical 
world this is generally not a problem, as a purchaser can usually 
assume that the store's physical location will not change. The 
benefit of having a physical location to return to serves several 
purposes. First, the store owner's physical assets can be attached; 
second, the unsatisfied consumer can create a scene inside the 
store, or in the community, creating bad publicity for the owner and 
an incentive for prompt resolution; third, the physical location 
will be an indicator of the laws that will apply in the particular 
jurisdiction. Transacting in a physical location has advantages for 
the seller as well. The merchant can demand physical identification 
which can usually be verified through on-line databases combined 
with visual scrutiny of a photo ID, the purchaser's demeanor and 
dress and other non-verbal cues which can be stored by a video 
camera for future retrieval and proof of the transaction should the 
purchaser later attempt to repudiate. Telephone-based sales 
represents a hybrid marketplace with portions of the physical world 
and Cyberspace. From the consumer's standpoint, if she dialed an 800 
or 888 number she has little assurance of who she was actually 
calling, where they are located what laws apply, and whether the 
``order taker'' works for the company she is purchasing 
the product from, or an outsourced tele-marketing firm. The risks to 
the consumer are only that she may be giving her credit card number 
to someone other than a legitimate merchant who will use it 
fraudulently. However, her exposure is minimal because most credit 
card companies limit the consumer's liability to $50, assuming 
timely, good faith reporting efforts.
    The merchant suffers greater risks through telephone-based 
sales, although the tradeoff is less overhead than a storefront. If 
the consumer dials an 800 or 888 number, `caller id'' 
will notify the merchant of the phone number used by the purchaser 
to make the call which can be used in connection with reverse phone 
directories and address cross-checking databases to provide 
additional identity verification. However, the merchant is unable to 
demand visual identification, and is legally protected only by on-
line credit card clearing services, which can only benefit the 
merchant after the credit card theft has been discovered and 
reported. The majority of credit card thieves use the card as 
quickly as possible after the theft to take advantage of delays in 
reporting, Because of the limitations on identify verification, and 
the delays in theft reporting, the likelihood of fraudulent 
telephone-based transactions increases significantly.
    Internet-based sales represent the greatest opportunity for 
fraud to both parties. The merchant is unable to establish the 
caller's telephone number and related identifying information. 
Telephone records cannot provide evidence that the phone call took 
place because access will be through an independent Internet Service 
Provider dial-up service. Although Web servers can gather user 
information through cookies this is not always reliable. The 
opportunity for using stolen credit cards is at least the same as 
with telephone sales. (See ``The Essential Role of Trusted 
Third Parties in Electronic Commerce,'' Michael Froomkin)
    Also, it is possible for a Web site to be ``spoofed'' 
or misrepresented by a hacker, causing the unsuspecting user to 
enter their credit card and other relevant identifying information 
on-line. Although a technical discussion of ``Web 
spoofing'' is beyond the scope of this article, a 
``spoofed'' Web site can look exactly like the original to 
anyone but the most cautious of users. The unsuspecting consumer 
personal data would be turned over to the thief who would quickly 
use it.

[[Page 28628]]

    Because of these and similar identity authentication problems 
consumers and merchants cannot know with certainty, even with 
Digital Ids, the actual identity of someone on the Internet. Greater 
security measures are needed before consumers can reasonably trust 
the Internet as a medium for safe commerce.
    AUTHENTICODE--;THE REALITY WHAT IS THE ROLE OF THE 
CERTIFICATION AUTHORITY?
    The purpose of a Certificate Authority is to bind a public key 
to the common name of the certificate, and thus assure third parties 
that some measure of care was taken to ensure that this binding is 
valid. A measure of a Certificate Authority is their ``Policy 
Statement'' which states what measures they take for each class 
of certificate they offer to ensure that this binding of identity 
with public key is valid.
    2. WHAT IS THE ROLE OF A DIGITAL ID (PUBLIC KEY CERTIFICATE)?
    Although the actual digital signature process will not be 
covered in detail, the following brief explanation will highlight 
some of the important points. Traditional encryption for 
confidentiality uses only a single, ``secret'' key and is 
called symmetric cryptography. Digital signatures use a 
mathematically related key pair, (a ``public'' key and a 
``private'' key) and employ a technology called 
asymmetrical cryptography. A mathematical formula or algorithm is 
used in conjunction with a ``random-number'' generator to 
create the public and private keys. The design of the encryption 
algorithm relates the two keys in such a way as to allow either key 
to decrypt a message encrypted by the other. However, it is 
``computationally infeasible'' to determine the value of 
the private key based on the public key and the digitally signed 
message. Additional information on digital signature is available at 
www.rsa.com and www.abanet.org/scitech/ec/isc.
    The utility of a digital signature as an authenticating tool is 
limited by the ability of the recipient to ensure the authenticity 
of the key used to verify the signature. The following explanation 
will demonstrate this truth. The traditional labels used to 
represent the different parties in this sort of discussion are Bob, 
the sender, and Alice, the recipient. For purposes of this 
discussion a third party, Mallet, will play the role of evil hacker. 
If Bob digitally signs a message using his private key and sends it 
to Alice the only way she has to verify that Bob really sent it is 
if she knows Bob's public key. However, Alice must be able to 
retrieve Bob's public key from a source other than Bob's message 
because if Mallet is forging Bob's message he will send his own 
public key, claiming that it actually belongs to Bob.
    Mallet has the private key corresponding to the public key sent 
to Alice, her attempt to authenticate the message will result in a 
positive confirmation even though it was not really from Bob. 
However, if Alice has access to Bob's real public key from an 
outside trusted third-party source, and uses it to verify the 
message signed with Mallet's private key, the verification will 
fail, revealing the forgery. In short, the Certification Authority 
(CA) fills the role of an outside source and Bob's public key is 
transmitted from the CA to Alice in the form of a Digital ID or 
public-key certificate. In order to ensure the authenticity of the 
certificate, Bob's Digital ID will be digitally signed by the CA. In 
order for Alice to establish a ``trusted'' relationship 
with the CA she must have access to the CA's public-key from another 
trusted third-party:
    In practice, most if not all CAs have chosen to provide their 
public-key certificates to Netscape or other browser developers, who 
embed them into their browsers for easy access. In the event Bob has 
registered his public-key with a new, or unregistered CA, the 
browser software will notify the user and give him the opportunity 
to accept the CAs public-key `on the spot.'' This 
presents the user with a predicament, and also presents CAs with a 
strong incentive to pre-register with the Netscape, IE and other 
browsers.
    The fundamental problem comes down to how good a job the CA did 
in authenticating the subscriber identity. The CA's response 
will be that it made a good-faith effort consistent with the terms 
of the agreement or CPS to which both parties are bound. However, 
close scrutiny of the agreement will reveal that (1) very little 
detail is provided about the authentication methods used or the 
reliability of its sources of information, (2) the level of effort 
invested in the identity verification process is a function of the 
Level or Class of Digital Id. In other words, a subscriber's Digital 
Id that costs $20 will not receive as much identify authentication 
effort as will the subscriber to a $400 Digital Id. The following 
examples are cited by Verisign as representative of the sorts of 
transactions that could reasonably be performed using the various 
Levels of Certificate:
    These examples, as well as any attempt to standardize on a 
generalized template of reasonable reliance is of marginal utility. 
It quickly breaks down when faced with simple counter-examples such 
as the following. According to the Verisign Digital Id Certificate 
model, a Class 1 Digital Id is acceptable for use in confirming the 
identify of e-mail correspondents and transactions of very low 
value. Assuming an organization chose to use the Class 1 Id for 
transactions that are limited to a value of $.01, but the number of 
these transactions exceeds one million per day. Under these facts 
the company
    3. HOW DOES THE INTERNET EXPLORER BROWSER PROCESS THE DIGITAL 
ID?
    The following step-by-step explanation of what happens when an 
Internet Explorer browser visits a Web site containing an ActiveX 
component will provide an overview of the basic steps involved in 
the public-key digital signature process, as applied in Microsoft's 
Authenticode model. Additional introductory material on the subject 
is widely available on the WWW, including the Verisign, RSA, and 
American Bar Association, Information Security Committee sites.
    When the IE browser arrives at a Web site that contains an 
ActiveX control the browser will first check to see if the component 
has been digitally signed.
    If not, the browser will display a warning message to the user, 
stating that the component is of unknown origin and may present a 
security risk, and then allow the user to make the choice whether to 
allow the component to be downloaded to their PC or not.
    If the component has been digitally signed the browser will 
determine which Certification Authority (CA) authenticated the 
certificate, and if it doesn't already have a stored copy, it will 
automatically obtain the software publisher's public key from that 
CA via the Internet.
    The browser will then use the public key to decrypt the 
``message digest'' portion of the certificate. The browser 
will then run the same digital signature ``hashing 
algorithm'' on the component again and match the resulting 
message digest against the one in the certificate.
    If the component has not been modified, either intentionally or 
inadvertently since it was signed, the new digest should match the 
old one. If they don't match, either the code was modified or the 
public and private keys aren't a matched pair. Either way, the 
component becomes suspect and the browser notifies the user that it 
should be discarded.
    4. PROCESS WHEREBY SUBSCRIBER CONTRACTS WITH A CERTIFICATION 
AUTHORITY FOR A DIGITAL ID.
    The subscriber must provide the Certification Authority with 
enough identifying information to satisfy the CA's authentication 
requirements, depending on the Certificate Class. For example, the 
following information must be provided to Verisign during the 
enrollment process, either through their on-line enrollment forms or 
through regular mail.
    Individual Software Publishers (Class 2):
    . Individual Publisher's name, address, and e-mail address
    . Date of birth
    . Social Security Number
    . Previous address (if you have moved in the past 2 years)
    . Credit card information for billing
    Commercial Software Publishers (Class 3):
    . Company name, address, e-mail, phone, and fax
    . information for a technical contact and an
    . organizational contact.
    . company's DUNS number, if any.
    . Billing information (credit card, P.O. or check), and billing 
contact information, if any. As of June 1997, pricing for Software 
Publisher Digital IDs are as follows. Digital Ids for different 
purposes are also available, at different prices.
    Class 2 Digital ID for Validating Software: $20 annually [for 
Individual Software Publishers)
    Class 3 Digital ID for Validating Software: $400 annually [for 
Commercial Software Publishers, i.e. companies]
    The following excerpt from the Verisign Web site explains their 
procedure for verifying a company or individual identity.
    Based on Microsoft code signing program criteria, VeriSign will 
attempt to verify that your company meets a minimum financial 
stability level using ratings from Dun & Bradstreet Financial 
Services, or attempt to verify your personal information through a 
credit reporting agency such as Equifax for individual software 
publishers. Your

[[Page 28629]]

certificate will indicate if you have met this level. Some software, 
such as the Microsoft Internet Explorer 3.0, offers end users an 
option to bypass making an explicit choice to trust code from each 
new software publisher. If an end user checks an option to trust all 
software signed by vendors who have met the financial criteria, code 
signed by these vendors will be run without any user intervention.
    5. THE UTILITY OF AN AUTHENTICODE DIGIIAL ID
    All properly authenticated digital signatures can demonstrate to 
a high degree of certainty the following three attributes: 
Integrity--;The component has not be modified since it was 
signed, either intentionally or inadvertently.
    Authentication--;The purported identity of the party who 
registered as the component's author, based on the certificate's 
level of assurance and Verisign's corresponding identity 
verification criteria.
    Non-repudiation--;The component's registered author cannot 
later repudiate his identify as the component's registered author 
should it cause damage to a user's PC or other computer-related 
product (assuming the author registered the component using his own 
identity).
    However, because Authenticode will only work on Microsoft's 
Internet Explorer, users of any other browser will be unable to gain 
whatever benefit might be provided by this information. For example, 
if the ActiveX plugin from NCompass Labs, Inc. is used with a 
Netscape browser, any ActiveX component encountered on a Web site by 
the browser will be downloaded without Authenticode's intervention. 
Netscape's generic software download alarm will probably display a 
warning, giving the user an option to proceed or quit, but the 
existence of a Digital ID will not be a factor in the user's 
decision.
    Digital Certificates can only attempt to vouch for the 
authenticity of someone's identity, not for their good intentions. 
Neither the digital signature technology nor the Certification 
Authority (CA) make any warranties as to the safety of the ActiveX 
component. The Authenticode system merely relies on the assurances 
made by the component's developer to the CA when they initially 
apply for a Digital ID subscription. In the patois of logic this 
appears to be circular reasoning. The party whose trustworthiness is 
in question is providing the means for assuring the user of his 
trustworthiness. Furthermore, CA's have neither the mandate, 
resources, nor the incentive to actively monitor the behavior of 
millions of its certificate holders. Although they do have a duty to 
suspend or revoke a subscriber's Digital ID based on reported 
breaches of a specific set of criteria, they are not obligated to 
perform an independent monitoring function.
    The possibility of undiscovered fraud is significant due to the 
ubiquity of stolen credit cards and access to personal information 
on the Internet combined with the limited authentication of the 
user's identifying information. Authenticode is supposed to provide 
the means for a user or corporation to ``trust'' the 
ActiveX components they download from the Internet by ensuring 
``accountability.''
    The approach here is accountability--;to cease having 
publication of software on the Internet be an anonymous activity. If 
an organization or individual wants to use the public Internet to 
publish software, they should be willing to take public 
responsibility for the code they author and publish. If the code 
proves to have errors or even malicious faults, these organizations 
and individuals should be willing to answer for them just as they 
would take credit for good code. This approach is founded on the 
idea that accountability is an effective deterrent to the 
distribution of harmful code. (emphasis added)
    The same argument can be made that license plates should act as 
deterrents to either prevent or curtail the use of cars in the 
commission of crimes. Because the license plate establishes the 
owner's identity (with possibly more certainty than a software 
publisher's certificate) it makes him accountable for his acts using 
the car and therefore cars will not be used in the commission of 
crimes. Still, stolen cars are used every day, to smuggle drugs, 
transport criminals to and from crime scenes, and perform other 
illegal acts.
    Obviously accountability is not an effective deterrent to the 
use of cars to commit crimes. Likewise, accountability is not an 
effective deterrent against the malicious use of ActiveX, because 
stolen credit cards are readily available. What is the solution to 
this problem? There is probably no single solution short of 
eliminating ActiveX entirely. However, a number of individual 
solutions are appearing which, when used in aggregate have the 
potential to reduce the threat of injury to an acceptable level. 
Several of these potential solutions are discussed below.
    6. DIGITAL AUTHENTICATION FOR WEB SERVERS.
    Verisign, Xcert, GTE and other companies are also in the 
business of selling Digital Ids for Servers. According to Verisign, 
their product would enable the server owner to establish his 
authenticity to Web browsers visiting his site. in the marketing 
literature describing Digital Ids for Servers on its Web site, 
Verisign explains:
    In the virtual world of the Internet, however, the web-site of 
an unscrupulous con-artist might look just as professional as that 
of a legitimate business. The low cost-of-entry and the ease with 
which graphics and text can be copied make it possible for almost 
anyone to create sites that appear to represent established 
businesses or organizations. To protect your organization and your 
customers from such impostors, you need a way to establish you 
site's authenticity.
    Interestingly, in one context Microsoft and Verisign guarantee 
that users will be able to garner enough information by visiting the 
developer's Web site to make an informed judgment of both the 
developer's and his program's trustworthiness. However, in this 
context Verisign is saying that because almost anyone can create Web 
sites that appear to represent established businesses or 
organization that Web site owners should use Digital Id for Servers 
to establish their site's authenticity to visitors. Later in this 
same Microsoft document mentioned above, under ``Qualifying for 
the Individual Software Publishing Certificate'' Microsoft 
rhetorically asks the question, ``What is the value of the 
Individual Software Publishing Certificate?'' The document 
responds:
    it would seem that users aren't going to trust individuals they 
don't know, and businesses aren't going to let code signed by 
students at a local university into their corporate domain. While 
this may indeed be the case, the value of this type of certificate 
is in the information it provides to the user so that he/she can 
make the decision on how to run the code. Knowing who authored the 
code, and that the bits have not been altered from the time the code 
was signed to the present is indeed comforting information. 
Additionally, the implementation provides links from the user 
interface (UI) to Web pages so the user can obtain detailed 
information about the signed code, the author, and the certificate 
authority. After learning about this code and the author, the user 
may decide to run the code, and/or all future code signed by this 
certified individual. (emphasis added).
    Leaving aside the remarkable statement that corporations would 
inevitably not allow software developed by local university students 
into their domain, Authenticode fails to provide an objective means 
for users to evaluate this supposedly detailed information about the 
signed code and its author that is being made available to them. One 
is left with the gnawing suspicion that Microsoft intends for there 
to be a direct relationship between a software developer's 
advertising budget, the purported ``trustworthiness'' of 
his software, and the frequency with which users will download it 
over the Internet. In other words the more a developer can achieve 
brand name and product name recognition amongst Internet users the 
more frequently his products will be downloaded. Not surprisingly, 
Microsoft has one of the biggest advertising budgets in the world.
    7. PULLING IT ALL TOGETHER WITH SSL. ... ALMOST.
    We have seen that browsers can authenticate software publisher 
Digital Ids and that Web servers can authenticate client browser 
Digital ??ds, assuming the subscriber's identity is established with 
reasonable certainty. However, this authentication is only performed 
once, at the beginning of the transaction. After the initial 
``handshaking'' takes place and the browser software is 
convinced that the other party is who she claims to be, no further 
checking is performed. This would leave either or both parties 
vulnerable to eavesdropping, replay and spoofing attacks during the 
remainder of the communication, if not for SSL.
    Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) is an industry standard 
communications protocol that attempts to remedy these problems by 
creating unique signature keys that are exchanged throughout the 
entire communication ``session.'' In other words, after 
the client is certain the server is not spoofing its identity, the 
server and client exchange ``session-keys'' that will be 
used to

[[Page 28630]]

sign the data during the data exchange. With SSL 2.0, the same 
signature keys must also be used for encryption, if confidentiality 
is needed, however with SSL 3.0 signatures can use different keys 
than the encryption engine. SSL's main function is to protect users 
from attack by eavesdroppers or message interceptors. Both the 
client and the server provide part of the random data used to 
generate the keys for each connection and that same random data is 
also used to generate the master secret key associated with that 
session.
    (a) Caching data during secure connections. One important 
drawback to this SSL scheme is the fact that the Netscape browser 
can store in local cache on the user's hard disk any data that has 
been sent by it during the secure connection. Navigator 3.0 has an 
option to allow caching of data fetched over SSL connections, 
however the default setting is to not cache data. in Navigator 2.0, 
documents fetched using SSL were cached in the same way as non-SSL 
documents. However, the command ``Pragma: no-cache'' in 
the HTTP header can be used to disable caching for a particular 
page. Interestingly, in Navigator 1.0 documents fetched with SSL 
were not cached.
    Most importantly the cached data is not encrypted and is 
available to ``prying eyes'' in cleartext form. As long as 
the cache remains on the user's hard disk, any information such as 
credit card numbers or private keys that were sent over the secured 
SSL connection are ripe for the picking by anyone either physically 
accessing the PC or using an intermediate agent such as an ActiveX 
control.
    (b) Handling previously unknown certification authorities while 
Web browsing Whenever a previously unknown CA is encountered by a 
browser their Root keys for Certificate Authority certificates are 
loaded through an automatic process using an SSL connection. This 
means that conceivably a ``rogue'' CA can load its 
certificate into browsers and begin authenticating harmful ActiveX 
controls without any restrictions. Netscape states that presumably 
in the future loading a root certificate through a local process, 
such as from disk, LDAP, or other out-of-band mechanism, will be a 
supported addition or in place of the present method of connecting 
to a trusted server and downloading the certificate chain. This 
presumption is an acknowledgment of the severe security risks 
associated with the current approach, and also an acknowledgment of 
the technological complexity of the more secure approach.
    (c) Vendor Incompatibles The successful application of these SSL 
keying standards is also completely dependent on the capabilities of 
both the client browser and the Web server. However because 
different software vendor's products support different 
implementations and versions of SSL, fundamental barriers still 
exist to prevent a universally ``secure'' Web browsing 
experience. Other obstacles to trustworthy applications include the 
inability for Web servers to automatically check every certificate 
for currency, either by checking its expiration date, or checking an 
on-line ``certificate revocation list'' (CRL) to determine 
whether the certificate has been suspended or revoked for fraudulent 
or criminal abuse. As this technology evolves, these barriers will 
be eliminated, bringing us closer to the goal of authenticated, safe 
communication on the Internet. The problem in the near term however, 
is that most users are not made aware of the risks associated with 
these technological shortfalls.
    8. CERTIFICATION REVOCATION LISTS (CRLs)
    A certificate revocation list (CRL) is a repository of 
information that presents the current state of any public-key 
certificate to anyone who accesses it. The CRL can be implemented in 
different ways but the approach Verisign uses for the Authenticode 
Digital Ids is to only include those certificates that have a 
current unrevoked status. In other words, it is possible for a 
certificate to either be in an active, suspended or revoked state. 
If the certificate has been revoked it should not be relied on under 
any circumstances. However, if the certificate is temporarily 
suspended it is possible that removal of that status is imminent and 
the potential relying party should contact the Certification 
Authority directly for further details. Regardless of the unique 
circumstances it is essential the potential relying party have 
access to the certificate status or he will be making an uninformed 
decision regarding reliance. Implementation of the CRL is another 
contentious subject that again trades off between the development 
costs to provide customer ease-of-use and informed decision making. 
Unless the potential relying party knows how to access and use the 
CRL they are unable to benefit from its contents. However, 
instructions on its location and use are not conspicuously displayed 
when the potential relying party is presented with the publisher's 
Authenticode-based Digital Id. This is generally because this option 
has only recently been made available to HTML programmers and so a 
significant retrofitting of all certificates is needed to implement 
it. When implemented properly a button will appear on the Document 
Info page for servers whose certificate supports the appropriate 
extensions or commands. When the button is pressed the CA will be 
queried via HTTP GET, and will display a dialog to indicate to the 
user if the certificate is good or not. This button does not appear 
in the Authenticode Digital Id but instead must be 
``manually'' selected from the ``View'' pull-
down menu on the browser. If a user attempts to use a client 
certificate that has expired, a dialog will be displayed warning 
them that their certificate has expired, and if this extension 
exists, a button will be on the dialog that will bring up a window 
displaying the URL. There is no automatic revocation check. As 
mentioned above, a button allowing manual checks is displayed on the 
Document Info page. According to Netscape this feature was added 
because some people needed revocation, but they did not have time to 
support full CRLs. However, in a future release they will support 
CRLs, and possibly other forms of revocation technology.
    Client authentication as implemented by Microsoft Internet 
Explorer 3.0 is interoperable with popular Web servers that support 
secure sockets layer (SSL) 3.0 client authentication. Microsoft is 
working to extend the complete set of technology components 
necessary for webmasters to incorporate client authentication in 
their Web applications. This includes extending Windows NT(r) Server 
operating system support for challenge and response and the SSL 2.0 
protocol used by Microsoft Internet information Server to also 
``include support for client authentication through the SSL 3.0 
protocol.
    7. RELYING PARTY AGREEMENT
    The greatest potential victim of any defects in the Authenticode 
model is arguably the relying party who attempts to verify the 
Digital ID and make the decision to download. A detailed discussion 
of the many legal uncertainties surrounding CAs and certificates is 
beyond the scope of this article. Suffice it to say that a legal 
outcome will in part depend on the jurisdiction hearing the claim 
and the ``reasonableness'' of the reliance. Verisign has 
attempted to address many of these issues in its ``Relying 
Party Agreement'' which, according to its language, is binding 
as soon as the third party ``relies,'' either 
intentionally or otherwise. This reliance is supposed to be 
triggered automatically when the party inspects a Verisign 
Certificate Revocation List or accepts a Verisign Digital ID. This 
agreement also attempts to remove the ``choice of law'' or 
jurisdiction question by specifying that all parties are bound by 
California laws. However, a more fundamental question must first be 
addressed. Under California's Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) statutes 
however, if a certificate is considered a good rather than a 
service, any disclaimer of warranties must consist of a conspicuous 
writing attached to the good being sold. It is difficult to envision 
how this should be accomplished, yet Verisign's incorporation by 
reference may not meet the California standard for conspicuousness. 
Furthermore, the relying party is expected to read this agreement 
before ``us(ing) or rely(ing) upon any information or services 
provided by VeriSign's Repository or website '' or 
``search(ing) for a certificate, or ( ) verify(ing) a digital 
signature'' in Verisign's repository and that by doing the 
verification the user is agreeing to the terms of the agreement, 
including acknowledging that she has ``access to sufficient 
information to ensure that [she] can make an informed decision as to 
the extent to which [she] will chose [sic] to rely on the 
information in a certificate.''
    The relying party is supposedly bound by the agreement which 
affirms that she has enough information to decide to what extent she 
will rely on the information in a certificate, and also that she is 
solely responsible for deciding whether or not to rely on the 
information in the certificate. In other words Verisign is making no 
statements about what the information in the certificate represents 
and instead shifts the burden to the relying party to make the 
download decision without providing them with the necessary tools 
and resources.
    There are at least two flaws with this approach: (1) It 
presupposes the relying party can agree that sufficient information 
will be

[[Page 28631]]

on the certificate to make the determination as to whether she will 
rely on it or not, without having seen the publisher's Web site, and 
(2) The relying party must be able to receive authentication of a 
subscriber's public-key from a trusted-third-party (TTP) or the 
entire model is useless.
    8. FACTUAL EXAMPLE OF FLAWS IN THE AUTHENTICODE SOLUTION
    (a) Unforeseen Interactions
    Consider two ActiveX controls. One provides a control similar to 
the Win95 ``Start'' button with all the commands on the 
user's computer presented in a list to choose from. Suppose it keeps 
these command names in a preferences file such as 
C:-bswindows-bsco
mmands. The file may contain a list such as: Word, Excel, format c:, 
IE3, etc.
    Consider a second ActiveX control that performs certain 
``housekeeping'' functions on the PC at regular intervals. 
It automatically wakes up at a specified time and executes a list of 
commands such as backup, defrag, etc. Suppose it keeps its list of 
commands in, for instance 
C:-bswindows-bsco
mmands. At the next scheduled interval the second control dutifully 
finds the file written by the first one and fires up Word, Excel, 
and then formats the C drive. Commands after this one are of 
diminishing consequence. The user's hard disk is wiped clean and so 
are the ``fingerprints'' for Authenticode. Even if they 
are somehow located, who should the user point the law enforcement 
people towards? Both controls did exactly what they were designed to 
do, exactly what they advertised to do. Who is the user going to 
sue? Obviously neither ``misbehaved.'' What happened was 
an unforeseen interaction between the two, and was only possible 
because ActiveX is given unrestricted access to those system-level 
tasks. With only a bit of planning it would be possible to come up 
with a cooperating gang of ActiveX controls to do deliberate theft 
via collusion where each program is only doing what it's 
``supposed'' to, yet the total of their activity is much 
greater than the sum of the parts. Current methods of tracking 
events through logfiles are unable to accurately reflect the non-
linearity that is clearly at work here in the interaction of the 
components, the only way to avoid this would be to strictly de-
couple the controls, by not allowing any to share information with 
the other, such as giving each its own private file-space to write 
in. Although this is the approach used by Java's sandbox, alas it is 
not possible in the ``security-free'' world of ActiveX.
    (b) Proving the Origin of the Malicious Code Can be Almost 
Impossible
    In the event the malicious code does not either reformat the 
user's hard disk or destroy its digital certificate outright there 
is still a great deal of uncertainty as to how the particular 
malicious code at fault can be identified as the cause of any 
particular harm. Certainly it would be easy if the damage occurred 
immediately after the ActiveX control was downloaded. But if it does 
something indirect; or waits until executed the 100th time; or 
modifies some other program so that it later does something nasty; 
then tracking down the source of the original corruption will be 
extremely difficult.
    Assume for example that a component is signed by the real 
author, who was certified by a competent CA to be a reputable 
software developer. The user reviews the certificate at install 
time, and accepts it on the basis of the reputation of the 
developer. The user then forgets about the code for some weeks to 
come. Later on, he or she visits a page of a hacker, or a page of a 
web site that has been broken into by a hacker, and the IE browser 
invokes the code with arguments supplied by the hacker. The code may 
appear to do what it's supposed to, or appear to do nothing at all 
while it's erasing the web browser's history file. The user may not 
even be aware that code is executing. The user goes on to about 50 
other Web pages that night, and shuts off their machine with no 
evidence of a problem. When they reboot they may have a huge 
problem, depending on what the code was reprogrammed to do. The 
Authenticode scenario suggests that the user can now call their 
lawyer to sue someone, but who do they sue? The hacker that the FBI 
can't track? The well intentioned but pressured software developer 
who wrote the harmless control that was manipulated by the hacker to 
cause the damage? The certification authorities like Verisign that 
have forty page disclaimers of liability? And even if someone could 
be sued, is this an acceptable remedy for being without their 
computer system?
    (c) No Consideration is Given to the Author's Competence as a 
Programmer
    In cases where a program such as ActiveX has the ability to act 
on untrusted data, it isn't valid to make a judgment of its security 
simply on the basis of trusting that the writer of the program is 
not malicious. Consideration of how competent they are at writing 
``safe programs'' is also important. Users of ActiveX are 
being encouraged to accept or reject controls based on whether they 
think the signer is trustworthy or not. No consideration is given to 
the stronger, and more relevant criterion of the author's competence 
as a programmer.
    Because third parties can provide potentially hostile input to 
Active X controls--;at least for those classified as ``safe 
for initialization``--;the ``appropriate 
diligence'' for such a control is much greater than that 
required for an ordinary application. Even though a well intentioned 
author creates a ``safe'' program, unless it has been 
written using the appropriate security safeguards it can be made to 
cause damage through the actions of another ActiveX control.
    (d) Microsoft Justifies the Inherent Security Risks of ActiveX 
by Arguing that Users Want and Demand a Rich Computing Experience.
    It has been argued that the Java sandbox approach is too 
restrictive, and that users want and demand a rich computing 
experience. This may be true, but these same users would prefer to 
use the name of their favorite movie star or basketball player as a 
password. It is up to the computer professionals to maintain a 
balance between adequate security protection and ease of use. Users 
should be encouraged to take informed risks, but they must be given 
the guidance and tools to accurately perform the risk/benefit 
analysis. Authenticode deters users from taking informed risks 
because it fails to provide them with the information needed to make 
an informed decision while at the same time assuring them that it is 
at their disposal.
    (e) The Myth That Commercial Software Publishers and Others Will 
Be Deterred From Writing and Distributing Malicious Software Because 
of the Polential Risks of Economic Loss and Legal Liability
    Historically hefty financial barriers to entry into the software 
development market using traditional distribution channels have 
restricted the number of market entrants. However the Internet 
provides a very low entry-cost distribution mechanism that is not 
without an increase in associated risks. Lowering the entry cost 
increases the potential for abuse. Furthermore, automating the 
process increases the chance that the abuse may go unnoticed. No 
longer can it be assumed that software developers will not risk loss 
of their potentially small financial investment by loading malicious 
controls onto the Web that, if undetected, would serve their ends.
    (f) Average User Lacks the Training and Resources Necessary to 
Make Appropriate Downloading Decision Based on Information Provided 
by Developer's Web Site
    The average user is probably only able to recognize a handful of 
big name Internet-related software development companies and even 
fewer companies that develop ActiveX components. And yet users are 
being asked to decide whether or not they should download a 
particular company's ActiveX component based on whether they are 
``known'' (which, according to Microsoft's definition 
means ``trustworthy''). Assuming the developer is 
``unknown'' to them, the user has no idea what information 
on the developer's Web site is needed to making this critical 
decision and yet Microsoft clearly states that the user ``can 
make the decision on how to run the code'' based on the 
information provided in the certificate,
    Furthermore, the average user will probably be reluctant to 
spend much time seriously evaluating the trustworthiness of a 
software developer and will instead base their decision on the 
site's professional appearance or some other intangible and possibly 
irrelevant factor. According to Michael Sullivan-Trainor, director 
of International Data Corp.'s Internet program, ``The problem 
with the Web is that the sleaziest company in the world can put up a 
site as slick as the most respected corporation. Shopping [and 
downloading software] on the Web requires a little more 
investigation.'' Because a professional appearance can easily 
be created by the most criminal of software developer's it cannot be 
used as a measure of the developer's trustworthiness and yet 
Microsoft provides no guidelines to assist the user in making this 
analysis. Nevertheless they continue to assert, as stated above, 
that ``the value of this type of certificate is in the 
information it provides to the user so that he/she can make the 
decision on how to run the code'' and that this should be 
``comforting information.''
    (g) Contrary to Microsoft's Claim, Downloading Software From 
``Known'' Software Vendors Does Not Necessarily Eliminate 
Risk
    Implicit in the Authenticode trust model is the belief that all 
ActiveX components

[[Page 28632]]

created by ``known'' software developers will be harmless 
and can therefore be trusted and downloaded without reservation. The 
recent track records of several software developers including 
Microsoft, seriously undermine this notion. According to an article 
called ``Microsoft Security Flaws Run Deep,'' in the March 
6, 1997 issue of CNET's NEWS.COM authors Nick Wingfield and Alex 
Lash state that ``ActiveX is not the only security headache 
Microsoft is suffering. There are problems with its Internet 
Explorer browser.'' The article goes on to explain how earlier 
that week a group of students (does not specify whether they were 
students from the local university) found that by planting 
``Shortcuts'' on a Web site they could trigger resident 
Windows 95 and NT programs to delete and manipulate files on a 
user's computer when browsing the Web site. According to the article 
Microsoft developers worked around the clock to fix the security 
hole.
    In response to this IE ``Shortcuts'' security hole 
Stephen Cobb, director of special projects at the National Computer 
Security Association (NCSA) states, ``1 would say that you have 
to seriously question the integrity of Internet Explorer at this 
point because this was such a big hole.'' Cobb goes on to 
comment that ``Microsoft's statement that they did a lot of 
testing [on Internet Explorer] is worrying, because if they did a 
lot of testing and didn't find this problem, their testing is very 
flawed.'' In all fairness, it must be pointed out that security 
holes are being found in other software developer's products as 
well, however the significance of Microsoft's track record in this 
particular case is that they are the ones that are making the 
argument that if the software developer is ``known'' then 
their ActiveX components must be trustworthy, and that the only 
criteria that is important is whether or not the user recognizes the 
software developer.
    The same CNET article also points out that even if no one's 
computer is actually damaged by a security hole that is subsequently 
discovered after the user has downloaded software, individuals and 
companies still have to spend time and money to install the security 
patches on their systems. Stephen Cobb concludes that ``[I]t's 
difficult for Microsoft to weasel its way out with the ``it 
does no damage'' excuse, because [in the case of the 
``Shortcuts'' bug] systems administrators are already 
looking at a big cost hit,'' There is no empirical evidence to 
support Microsoft's assertion that downloading software from 
``known'' origins is less risky than from 
``unknown'' sites. Nor does this assertion take into 
consideration the possibility of a hacker placing a malicious 
control on a ``known'' Web site, or the possibility of a 
hacker ``spoofing'' a ``known '' Web site. 
Either of these can be done without detection either by the user or 
by the Authenticode system.
    Joel McNamara explores this same issue in the June 1997 issue of 
Infosecurity News. In an article titled, ``Security-Market 
Dynamics'' he writes, ``As security professionals, we like 
to think that security ranks right up there on everyone's most-
important list. But when security isn't the primary purpose of the 
product, security features all too often take a back seat. '' 
McNamara lists some of the security holes that have been discovered 
recently in many of Microsoft's products ranging from Windows NT, 
Windows 95, WORD macro viruses, to Internet Explorer, Authenticode 
and ActiveX. Joel observes that ``Microsoft's testing 
methodology appears to be more oriented toward discovering classic, 
show-stopping bugs rather than searching for more subtle, 
exploitable security holes.'' He concludes that, ``[i]f 
people continue to buy products with marginal security, why spend 
the extra time and money implementing high-end security .... 
Unfortunately, the marketplace usually needs to yell, scream and 
??reaten to walk away before it gets what it wants. So, until then, 
expect to see security as little more than just another check on a 
marketing features list.'' A user can be exposed to significant 
security risks even when downloading software from a 
``known'' developer such as Microsoft.
    (h) Relevance of Authenticode ``Trust-Model'' for 
users outside the United States
    Software developers located outside the United States but who 
wish to allow their components to be downloaded in the U.S.
    According to the Verisign Web page, ``Digital Ids for 
Servers: High-level Security at a Low Cost:''
    If your company has a Dun & Bradstreet (DUNS) number, you 
can complete your Digital ID request online. If you do not wish to 
use a DUNS number, or your company is not in the US, you can 
complete the enrollment form electronically and fax or mail Verisign 
any of the following pieces of documentation to establish your 
company's identity:
    . * Articles of Incorporation
    . * Partnership Papers
    . * Business license
    . * Fictitious Business License
    . * Federal Tax ID Confirmation
    Even assuming, for the sake of discussion, that Verisign's 
document authenticator's are familiar with the Articles of 
Incorporation or foreign equivalent for every country, and is able 
to make a reasonable effort to detect a faxed fraudulent document, 
how will the user who relies on the Digital ID know whether that 
foreign country even has any laws that will allow him some measure 
of recourse in the event that he suffers injury caused by the 
developer's software?
    Software developers located outside the United States but who 
wish to allow their components to be downloaded both in the U.S. and 
overseas. Verisign has begun ``franchising'' overseas 
Certification Authorities who wish to base their practice statements 
on the Verisign ``Certification Practice Statement'' 
(CPS). Although several are under development, BelSign 
(www.belsign.be) is the first franchisee to go productional, , and 
their stated territory is limited to Belgium and Luxembourg. So far 
little details are available about identity authentication 
procedures and other practical considerations and responses to e-
mail inquiries have not been forthcoming.
    (i) Web sites Can Be Spoofed or Hacked
    In December, 1996 the Secure Internet Programming team at 
Princeton University published a technical report describing an 
Internet security attack called ``Web spoofing.'' In this 
scenario, an attacker:
    . * Creates a shadow copy of a web page;
    . * Then, funnels all access to the web page through the 
attackers machine;
    . * And finally, tricks the unwary consumer into revealing 
sensitive or private data, such as PIN numbers, credit card numbers 
or bank account numbers
    Web spoofing requires that the attacker be able to interject his 
machine between the server and client, in a man-in-the-middle 
attack. Although under some situations certain visual cues may be 
used to detect the presence of a spoofed Web page, these can be 
eliminated by the skilled programmer. The only real solution is to 
check the ``View Source '' option and read the html source 
code for the Web page the user is currently browsing to know for 
certain whether their browser is connected to the correct site. Even 
a server and client using SSL can be spoofed if the hacker is able 
to intercept the client's initial request for authentication to the 
server and before a secure link is established. Once the 
unsuspecting user is connected to the attacker's bogus Web page, all 
transactions between the user and the certification authority can be 
intercepted and fraudulently manipulated. Thus, a harmful ActiveX 
program could easily be made to look as though it came from a 
``known'' and trustworthy developer. After the program has 
downloaded to the user's PC and done its damage there is no way for 
the user to identify the developer because the program never had a 
Digital ID in the first place. Furthermore, the knowledgeable hacker 
will delete or modify the browser's history file so no record would 
remain of the user's visit to the spoofed Web site. According to Ed 
Felten, co-founder of the Princeton Internet Programming research 
team, there have been reports of the FBI investigating false sites 
and forcing them to shut
    (j) Obtaining a Digital ID Through Fraudulent Means
    Fred Mclain, software developer, consultant, and author of the 
now infamous ActiveX ``Exploder'' control (see below), 
provides the following perspective on the Authenticode ``code 
signing'' process, from a FAQ on his personal Web site located 
at www.halcyon.com/mclain/.
    Code Signing simply attempts to identify who signed the control. 
Anyone can go out and get a code signature. It's a pretty much 
automatic process. You go to a web site, give them a name, address, 
credit card number and some other stuff (none of which have to be 
yours), click ``1 Agree'' on a page full of legal jargon, 
and pretty soon you get an e-mail with the information you need to 
sign the control in it. Once you have your Digital ID, you can sign 
any unsigned ActiveX control. Nobody reviews these controls! In 
other words, a signature doesn't tell you who wrote the control and 
it doesn't tell you if the control is safe or not. Heck, with the 
number of hot credit card numbers out on the net, it doesn't even 
tell you for sure who signed it. A danger is that seeing that a 
control is signed will give folks a warm fuzzy feeling about the 
control, and encourage them to run it, even though it does not 
guarantee their safety!
    A recent Associated Press news item from San Francisco dated May 
22, 1997

[[Page 28633]]

demonstrates the prevalence of credit card theft on the Internet and 
the accessibility to those stolen numbers. The article reports that 
according to Bureau spokesman George Grotz, the FBI recently 
arrested a hacker who used a ``sniffer'' program to 
eavesdrop on electronic transactions between customers and a dozen 
companies selling products through a major Internet provider. The 
sniffer software gathered 100,000 credit card numbers along with 
enough information to use them. The hacker was arrested for 
allegedly attempting to sell the information to an undercover FBI 
agent who saw the hacker's advertisement on a computer bulletin 
board.
    FBI statistics indicate that the majority of computer crimes go 
undetected, and, until recently, most of the ones that are detected 
are never reported. Therefore it is safe to assume that there are 
many other sources of fraudulent credit card information gathered 
from the Internet that are available to persons registering ActiveX 
controls. Frequently the credit card owner will not realize their 
number has been stolen for several weeks or months, depending on the 
thief's spending patterns. As a result, if a stolen credit card is 
used to acquire a Digital ID using fake identification, the 
fraudulent charges will go through undetected and because there is 
no retroactive follow-up on the part of Verisign or Microsoft, the 
certificate will remain valid even after the card theft has been 
discovered and the card invalidated, unless the defrauded consumer 
makes the effort to contact them which is unlikely.
    FACTUAL EXAMPLES OF ACTIVEX-RELATED SECURITY RISKS
    (1) InfoSpace Program Compromises Authenticode Security
    On September 23, 1996 CNET-Online and other publications 
reported that Lycos, a WWW Search engine company posted a program on 
its Web site that would allow downloadable programs with InfoSpace 
Digital Ids to bypass the Authenticode security controls in Internet 
Explorer.
    Nick Wingfield's article ``Program compromises IE 
security'' explains that because the program which was created 
for Lycos by InfoSpace, a startup Internet company, circumvents IE's 
security warning window, InfoSpace could sneak programs onto a 
user's personal computer without warning.
    InfoSpace executives denied that there was any malice intended 
in its program, adding that it has provided Lycos with an updated 
version of the code. Lycos planned to post the new program later 
that evening, according to InfoSpace. ``It was a bug that got 
incorporated into the production code,'' InfoSpace CEO Naveen 
Jain said. Although the InfoSpace program apparently was not created 
with malicious intent, according to Wingfield ``it underscores 
the fragility of Internet Explorer's security defenses, as well as 
broader security issues related to downloading over the 
Internet.'' ``Code signing is not a guarantee of code 
quality,'' Charles Fitzgerald, a product manager at Microsoft 
said. ``It's on accountability trail.''
    The InfoSpace ``bug'' modified the Windows 95 Registry 
configuration setting by simply registering InfoSpace as a 
``Trusted Publisher'' thereby allowing all code from 
InfoSpace to be downloaded automatically without requesting the 
user's consent. The operation is akin to inviting a guest over to 
your house for dinner before you leave town for a month-long 
vacation and having them copy the key to your front door without 
permission. If the guest enters your house while you're gone and a 
neighbor questions him about it, the guest only has to show the 
neighbor the copy of the key as confirmation he has your permission 
to enter. Whenever the user's browser detects an InfoSpace program 
it will automatically be downloaded without the user's awareness or 
consent, because Authenticode has been told to automatically trust 
all InfoSpace developed programs. ``Clearly their software is 
doing something a tad aggressive,'' said Rob Price, a group 
program manager for Internet security at Microsoft.'' (With 
Authenticode), users are making a one-time trust decision, this is a 
persistent trust decision.''
    (2) Symantec Corporation's Norton Utilities Victimized by 
Malicious ActiveX Control According to information posted on their 
Web site (www.symantec.com), on April 7, 1997, Symantec was notified 
that a malicious Web site had been created that uses an ActiveX 
control to gain access to a user's PC if they use Norton Utilities 
2.0 for Windows95 and get on the World Wide Web. Because a specific 
component (TUNEOCX.OCX) of the Norton Utilities System Genie is 
marked as a script file, ActiveX-aware WWW scripts can make use of 
it as an ActiveX control. The result is that a malicious user could 
use the script to run any command, such as delete, format or ftp, on 
the local host. Symantec responded to the news quickly and 
responsibly, posting a fix for the problem within 24 hours.
    (3) ``Exploder'' Control
    Software developer and consultant Fred Mclain created a live 
demonstration of ActiveX's capabilities in late summer of 1996. 
Mclain created an ActiveX control which he called 
``Exploder'' and which he placed on his Web site with the 
explanation that it would perform an automatic 
``graceful'' shutdown of any user's PC running Windows95 
who chose to voluntarily click on the control link and automatically 
download it to their PC. Because the control caused a 
``graceful'' shutdown no damage was caused to the user's 
PC, but the damage to Microsoft's image was immediate and 
irreversible. As recently as April 1997, Sun Microsystems CEO Scott 
McNealy was still demonstrating MClain's Exploder control to crowds 
of Java enthusiasts.
    (4) Germany's Chaos Computer Club Live Demonstration To Make 
Bogus Money Transfers From Intuit's Quicken Online Banking Customers
    The Chaos Computer Club (CCC), a German hackers group from 
Hamburg, demonstrated on national TV in February 1997 that they can 
use an ActiveX control to steal money from one account and put it 
into another without the use of a Personal Identification Number 
(PIN) during an online banking transaction.
    CCC showed that once the ActiveX control is downloaded by a user 
browsing their Web site who uses Intuit's Quicken for electronic 
banking, the control will add an extra electronic fund transfer 
command to the pending transfer list. The next time the user does 
his or her banking online, the bogus transaction will get executed 
along with the rest without alerting the user.
    The Computer Club's stated purpose in holding this public 
demonstration was to alert people about the risks associated with 
doing business on the Internet and specifically with ActiveX.
    intuit, the company that develops Quicken, responded by 
recommending that users disable the ActiveX controls in their 
Internet Explorer browsers or switch to the Netscape Navigator if 
they are concerned about the safety of ActiveX controls. The company 
also stated that of the 9 million copies of Quicken currently in use 
worldwide, the present U.S. version of Quicken can only be used to 
transfer money from ``pre-authorized'' accounts as 
approved by the user. A future German version of the software will 
have encryption features to prevent hackers from breaking in. To its 
credit, Intuit did an excellent job of public relations 
``damage control'' and used wide, the Web, because it is 
the the situation as an opportunity to educate consumers on how to 
take proper safeguards to protect themselves on the Internet in 
general and from similar situations in the future.
    RECENT MICROSOFT SECURITY ENHANCEMENTS
    (1) Microsoft's Authenticode 2.0--;Band-Aid for a severed 
artery
    Microsoft recently announced Authenticode 2.0, a significant 
upgrade to the initial version which was first released less than 
one year ago. On the plus side the new upgrade includes a number of 
features Microsoft says will make downloading code safer, including 
time-stamping support to ensure that code was signed with a valid 
digital certificate. Various Microsoft bulletins and announcements 
inconsistently report that It also supports access to certificate 
revocation lists (CRLs), a feature that checks in with an online 
list of revoked certificates before downloading code.
    However, on the negative side the logistics of the upgrade are 
cumbersome, time-consuming and will potentially result in delays 
while unsuspecting users are forced at the last minute to download 
either the upgrade. Software publishers who have signed their code 
prior to June 1997 must re-sign their code by June 30, or before 
their current Digital ID expires. According to Microsoft, because 
Authenticode 2.0 checks the revocation list to determine whether the 
Digital ID is still valid, it will notify a user who wants to 
download an control that has not been re-signed as either unsafe to 
download (if their security is set to High), or out-of-date (if 
their security is set to Medium). Only code that has been re-signed 
will appear in the revocation list as safe to download.
    This upgrade is significant as a validation of Microsoft's 
willingness to obfuscate the facts and fabricate its own reality, in 
its single-minded pursuit of market share. Prior to this upgrade a 
user was expected to navigate the maze of menus and options on

[[Page 28634]]

the Verisign Web site to locate CRL information. No explanation or 
instructions were presented to the user when the subscriber's 
certificate appeared on their screen, informing him that he must 
inquire of this proprietary database to find out whether the Id used 
to sign the certificate he was viewing and potentially relying on 
was still valid or whether it was suspended or revoked. Also, 
without the time stamping capability, it was impossible for the user 
to tell whether the certificate appearing on his screen was signed 
using an expired Digital Id or not. Although Microsoft and Verisign 
engineered this upgrade prior to the time most Digital Ids and 
certificates would have expired, there was no advance acknowledgment 
of this limitation. One can only hope that other essential 
attributes of this ostensibly trustworthy Authenticode security 
model are not still on the drawing board to released later as 
enhancements.
    (2) ``Security Zones''
    This new feature will let users or their network administrators 
arbitrarily divide the Web sites into four predefined zones: 
intranet, trusted extranet, general Internet and untrusted. Web 
sites can then be assigned to a particular zone, and be subject to 
the corresponding level of security protection. For example, ActiveX 
controls and Java applets coming from the Internet might be assigned 
to untrusted zones, and the administrator could prevent them from 
being downloaded by configuring that zones security protection 
accordingly.
    In a sense this is just a ``macro'' version of Java's 
``sandbox'' security model. The sandbox prevents Java 
applets from gaining access to sensitive system functions that are 
outside its boundaries. IE's security zones can also prevent Java 
and ActiveX programs from gaining access to sensitive system 
functions, depending on the way the security protections are 
configured. However, the user or administrator is Unable to override 
or misconfigure Java's default sandbox protection, whereas the IE 
security zone protection can be turned off or improperly configured, 
leaving the user completely vulnerable.
    THE FUTURE OF ACTIVEX AND DOWNLOADABLE AND EXECUTABLE 
CONTENT--;Will it ever be safe to ``trust'' again?
    If Microsoft is unwilling, users must organize and develop 
alternative means of protecting themselves from ActiveX. Some 
examples of proposed alternatives include:
    (1) Web of Distrust
    One author is calling for an online, independent watchdog 
organization that ``provides users with timely alerts on 
hazardous or questionable software.'' This group would act as a 
clearinghouse for reports of all harmful or suspicious downloadable 
and executable content. The information could be distributed by 
newsletters to subscribers, or available to any user by hyperlink 
access before they make the ``fateful'' decision to 
download. Kobielus writes, ``Our best defense against malignant 
controls is to pool our experiences, expose the offending code-
mongers to the entire online ``.... Net community and thereby 
burn them out of existence.''
    Although certain legal issues and standards must be addressed 
before ``burning'' anyone out of existence, this approach 
could serve as a model for a more effective means of keeping 
Cyberspace free from harmful code.
    (2) Better-Business-Bureau OnLine (BBBOnLine)
    The Council of Better Business Bureaus, best know for their 
certification of local businesses in the physical world, have 
developed a new U.S. online service, ``dedicated to helping 
consumers identify ethical marketers on the Internet and thereby 
make the Internet a safer, more reliable place to get information 
and conduct business.'' According to information on their Web 
site, companies that display an encrypted BBBOnLine CARE seal on 
their Web pages have demonstrated their commitment to a series of 
strict business standards for customer service and marketplace 
ethics. Consumers can hyperlink from the seal to the BBBOnLine home 
page to get a reliability report on the member company, including 
their management, time in business, relevant aspects of its goods 
and services, complaint experience and other evidence of responsible 
marketplace behavior. Several large corporations involved in 
Internet-related markets are co-sponsoring this service including, 
Hewlett-Packard, Xerox, Netscape, AT&T, and GTE....
    Some examples of their rigorous Participant Standards include: 
Provide the BBB with inform ation regarding company location, 
background, etc. which will be verified by the BBB in a visit to the 
company's physical premises;
    Be in business a minimum of one year (with limited exceptions); 
Respond promptly to all consumer complaints; Agree to binding 
arbitration, at the consumer's request, for unresolved disputes 
involving consumer products or services advertised or promoted 
online.
    (3) PC-based Browser Add-on Security Products
    Several vendors including Finjan Inc., and Safe Technologies 
have recently released products that promise to provide protection 
against all Internet threats, whether they are hostile ActiveX 
controls or Java applets, eSafe Protect not only recognizes a set of 
known security holes and rogue controls, but it also has the ability 
to run in a learning mode. This allows the program to see where the 
user's browser and e-mail clients usually read or write data or 
execute other applications and develop a pattern of acceptable 
behavior (similar to an ``intelligent'' sandbox model). 
After the learning period is completed (usually about one day), any 
activity outside of the normal range will generate an alarm, and 
require user intervention to proceed. As a result it also provides 
protection against yet-to-be-discovered security holes in popular 
Web browsers or other unknown hazards. Independent Software 
Accrediter is Necessary to Determine Software 
``Harmlessness'' Digital signatures can measure the 
authenticity of a person, but not their intentions or competence. 
Until software developers see it is in their best interest to invest 
more resources into writing secure software a separate entity is 
needed to gather concrete evidence of the software developer's 
intention and competence in advance. By testing their software 
against industry benchmarks and providing guidance to the uninformed 
user interested in ascertaining the safety of the software they want 
to download this entity will bridge the gap between identity 
verification and a software publisher's intentions and competence.
    The ``Software Accrediter'' will validate that an 
ActiveX component is both harmless and ``safe'' to operate 
in an ``open'' environment by testing it against a set of 
industry-wide programming and Internet security standards. For a 
control to be ``harmless'', it must be unable to cause 
damage by itself. For it to be ``safe'' the control must 
be designed and written with a level of programmer competence that 
prevents other controls from being able to advantage of programming 
flaws and force it to cause harm.
    The Software Accrediter will take on significance in the use of 
downloadable and executable content to authenticate its conformity 
to the norms of programming and Internet security practice. For 
instance, where a Software Publisher Digital ID is executed and 
digitally signed by a Certification Authority, the ``Software 
Accrediter'' will issue a message of accreditation attached to 
the Digital ID which validates the harmlessness and safety of the 
program within certain parameters. The validation will identify the 
level of risk associated with the control and the user can make an 
informed decision whether or not to download the control, based on 
the potential injury he could suffer. Neither the mere application 
of a digital signature, or the restriction to ``safe 
zones'' satisfies accreditation requirements for these types of 
dangerous programs. The ``Software Accrediter'' will 
combine the benefits of digital signatures with industry-accepted 
software accreditation to provide high quality international control 
authentication in a measure far exceeding current practices.
    Public key cryptography, or digital signatures, can be used to 
sign application software and certify it as ``safe'' as 
judged by some certifier, only if the software is held up against a 
set of industry standards--;where one of the 
``safety'' properties would be that the application cannot 
be corrupted by malicious external programs or data. Microsoft 
offers Authenticode as a way of empowering the user to determine 
whether individual downloadable executable Web content is safe to 
use. It purports to provide the user with information which will be 
``comforting'' to them in their analysis. Unfortunately, 
Authenticode simply moves the burden of assurance on to the user, 
without making the analysis any more tractable. It places an 
unreasonable burden on users, who must decide which developers are 
trustworthy based on insufficient data and inadequate tools. Because 
even major mass market application software (e.g., Quicken) appears 
susceptible to attacks by malicious controls, it is not clear what 
this type of certification technique could add.
    Netscape's Hybrid ``Code-Signing'' Solution

[[Page 28635]]

    Netscape has recently released its own implementation of an 
Authenticode-like Product that has much more robust security 
protection against harmful downloadable and executable programs. In 
addition to the generic characteristics of a digital signature; 
authentication, integrity and non-repudiation, ``code-
signing'' also determines what an ActiveX control or Java 
applet wants to do on the user's machine, Netscape's Communicator 
checks to see if the software is signed and attempts to verity the 
signature. If the applet is unsigned or if the signature is 
unverified the applet is automatically restricted to running inside 
the ``sandbox.''
    When the downloaded program wants to get access to a PCs system 
resources a dialog box is displayed that shows the user what kind of 
access it wants, the identity of the signer, and the associated 
risks. With this information the user then decides to allow or deny 
the access that the Java applet has requested.
    ActiveX controls can be packaged in such a way as to fulfill the 
Java specifications necessary to allow code-signing. This process is 
accomplished using the JAR Packager tool which creates an envelope 
around the control that results in a cross-platform JAR file. The 
JAR Packager is a tool that allows developers to sign, envelope and 
compress Java applets, plugins, and any other type of file. The JAR 
file format was a joint effort between JavaSoft and Netscape.
    In the future, an evolving combination of these and other 
approaches will be used to provide protection. Security guru Gary 
McGraw believes the long-term solution combines ``code-signing 
authentication and some sort of security model, like a [Java] 
Sandbox.'' He believes it will be ``much easier to [add 
code-signing] to extend Java .... than it will be reverse engineer 
Sandbox into ActiveX.''
    SUMMARY
    The general outlook for ActiveX as a computer security problem 
is unclear. The potential vulnerabilities are legion. Bearing in 
mind the FBI's computer crime statistics indicate that over 80% of 
all detected computer crimes go unreported, and many more of them go 
undetected, during its initial 18 months in existence exploitation 
of ActiveX has been virtually non-existent. Unfortunately, as the 
economic incentive for creating malicious ActiveX controls 
increases, it seems likely that attackers will attempt to exploit 
its security vulnerabilities.
    Given the obvious security risks presented by ActiveX, combined 
with the absence of broad-based support for Authenticode, the only 
possible explanation for Microsoft's continued pursuit of this folly 
is a last-ditch effort to keep its hand in the Internet game and 
maintain its share of the desktop computing software market. 
Microsoft is Committed to maintaining its monopolistic hold on the 
PC and Internet software industry by marketing its auto-immune 
deficient ActiveX software product, and its parasitic partner 
Authenticode. Even with the intellectual horsepower at its disposal 
it appears to be unwilling to develop a secure alternative because 
then there would be little incentive for users to purchase its 
internet Explorer Web browser, and there would be little hope for 
Bill Gates'' vision of a single, seamless Windows-based PC 
desktop and Internet interface.
    CONCLUSION
    This article has presented some good points and bad points about 
ActiveX and Authenticode both of which have only been in existence 
for less than two years. It is inevitable that both security 
protection for downloadable and executable programs and 
Certification Authority policies and practices will evolve 
gradually. Nevertheless, in the interest of minimizing the risk 
exposure to the user, it would be prudent for software developers to 
acknowledge these risks up front and allow users to understand them 
and begin making informed decisions based on accurate information, 
or paying customers must demand something better. Risks associated 
with downloading any software from the Internet are unavoidable, but 
Microsoft chooses not to explain those risks to users or give them 
the tools to properly manage those risks. Instead what Microsoft 
does provide is confusing, contradictory FAQs, bulletins and 
marketing announcements that even go so far as to state, 
``Because Microsoft must respond to changing market conditions, 
this document should not be interpreted to be a commitment on the 
part of Microsoft, and Microsoft cannot guarantee the accuracy of 
any information presented after the date of publication.''
    Microsoft understandably wants to be the first to market with 
each of its latest Internet software products so it can gain 
whatever advantage it can over its competitors. But they are cutting 
corners at the customer's expense by leaving necessary security 
features out and the customer needs to be informed to decide whether 
it is an acceptable expense. In the wake of Love Canal, Three-Mile 
Island, Hanford Nuclear Reactor, Rocky Flats and other life-
threatening breaches of the public trust we have matured as a nation 
to the point where even the courts support our right to receive 
advance notice before toxic chemicals are pumped into our back yards 
and personal spaces. Yet Microsoft is allowing toxic ActiveX 
components to be downloaded into our PCs without reasonable notice 
and disclosure of all the risks by pretending that it's fake 
security system Authenticode can provide reasonable detection and 
defense.
    The most effective long-term technical solutions appear to 
require systemic changes in the way computer software is built and 
the way software standards are developed and enforced. The safest 
near-term alternatives for the majority of users all involve giving 
up many of the ``bells and whistles'' that make Web 
browsing so entertaining by configuring Internet Explorer browsers 
to restrict all ActiveX controls from being downloaded to the 
desktop.
    * Copyright Rick Hornbeck, 1997.
    Microsoft recently announced on TechNet that, as of the release 
of XP, the only way that consumers and businesses can make on-line 
purchases, or submit private data (e.g., on-line banking) through a 
``secure'' (SSL-enabled) Web site, is by using new 
features that are available exclusively on Windows XP, via the 
Windows Update Web site. Users of Microsoft NT, ME, and WZK may 
install an ``upgrade patch'' that will allow them to 
manually download new root certs, and to use a limited subset of the 
XP-based capability.
    To better protect Microsoft customers from security issues 
related to the use of public key infrastructure (PKI) certificates 
and enhance the experience for Windows users, Microsoft is moving to 
standardize and clarify the criteria for root certification 
authorities in Windows XP. This standard also applies to root 
certification authorities in Internet Explorer and any other 
Microsoft product.
    (http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/news/rootcert.asp)
    Let me repeat, as of the release of XP next week, the ability 
for consumers using non-Microsoft operating systems to perform 
``secure'' transactions via Internet Explorer (IE) will be 
severely curtailed, and over the coming months, entirely eliminated.
    When a user visits a secure Web site (that is, by using HTTPS), 
reads a secure e-mail (that is, S/MIME), or downloads an ActiveX 
control that uses a new root certificate, the Windows XP certificate 
chain verification software checks the appropriate Windows Update 
location and downloads the necessary root certificate. To the user, 
the experience is seamless. The user does not see any security 
dialog boxes or warnings. The download happens automatically, behind 
the scenes.
    Microsoft has no plans to provide an ``upgrade patch'' 
for the non-Microsoft versions of IE that it currently supports 
(e.g., Solaris, Linux, HP-UX, and Mac.). Microsoft properly 
considers Auto Root Update and Windows Update to be Windows 
technologies for conveniently keeping users up to date with 
certificates in the Microsoft Root Program (the user doesn't have to 
take many steps to install the roots). However, it has no plans to 
provide these convenience mechanisms for non-Windows platforms at 
this time.
    The result is that the only way that CAs or on-line merchants 
can get their certificates into the IE browsers of non-Microsoft 
consumers is by forcing the consumer to manually download and 
install the certificate directly from a Web site. This eliminates 
any level of trust assurance that may have resulted from IE's 
existing root certificate accreditation process.
    Under this new regime, when a consumer using IE on a non-
Microsoft platform enters a secure Web site to make a secure on-line 
purchase, he is prompted to download and trust the CA root 
certificate of any merchant whose root is not already in that 
browser, The same is true if a Web site wants to download an ActiveX 
control, which is signed by an unknown and hence ``un-
trusted'' Publisher, Eliminating future access to new root 
certificates in its IE browser will deprive consumers using non-
Microsoft platforms from the ability to conveniently and 
``securely'' make purchases at a secure Web site (HTTPS), 
read secure e-mail (S/MIME), or download signed ActiveX controls 
with the same level of trust assurance that he experienced prior to 
this new regime.
    This change will adversely affect the consumer, the on-line 
merchant, and the CA,

[[Page 28636]]

as each of them has a stake in making the on-line experience as 
smooth, secure, and convenient as possible. This latest manipulation 
of the Internet software market by Microsoft will provide consumers 
with a strong incentive to migrate to a Windows platform, so they 
can continue to use the Web with the same degree of ease, and sense 
of security as before.
    In addition, some commercial PKI applications and products are 
designed around consumer access to their root certificates in 
Microsoft's IE. Eliminating consumer access to their root 
certificates from IE will force them to restructure their 
applications, and in some cases their whole product strategy. Of 
course, Microsoft will argue that these vendors were receiving a 
``free ride,'' while it developed the technology to 
tighten up its PKI solution. However, Microsoft's PKI solution is 
anything but ``tight,'' and in fact, it is still quite 
immature. In addition, it will remain so for several years, to the 
detriment of the consumer, and the industry.
    This tactic is virtually identical to the one that Microsoft 
used to eliminate competition in the browser market. It offered 
features similar to Netscape's, but at no charge, because it could 
afford to use its income from OS sales to offset the loss it took on 
its browser product. Initially, Microsoft's browser was inferior to 
Netscape. However, over time, as the marketing power of the Windows 
desktop gradually surmounted Netscape's marketing channels, and as 
Microsoft commandeered many of the existing Internet browser 
standards, IE achieved a superior market position. This time 
Microsoft provided consumers and the industry with 
``free'' access to CA root certificates embedded in IE. 
However, now that it believes it has eliminated any competition for 
this service, Microsoft intends to force consumers to purchase XP or 
another Windows platform, so they can continue to enjoy the same 
convenience and benefits from digital certificates as before.
    Although Microsoft will certainly claim otherwise, I believe it 
is well within its power to continue to support the storage of new 
root certificates in non-Microsoft versions of IE. However, 
Microsoft representatives have indicated that they have no plans to 
do so at this time. As are result, consumer trust in on-line 
commerce, and the viability of many PKI solution vendors will both 
suffer in Microsoft's latest grab for another piece of the Internet 
software market, PKI. Microsoft's PKI solution is inferior to 
current alternatives, and it will not achieve its promised 
capabilities for many years, after using the public as its testing 
ground.
    Is Microsoft trying to corner another piece of the Internet 
software market by illegally leveraging its market powers, as the 
court agreed that it has done in the past? The pattern is virtually 
identical.
    Rick N. Hornbeck
    556 S. Fair Oaks Ave,, Suite 346
    Pasadena, CA 91105
    [email protected]
    (323) 363-;2151
    PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE:
    HORNBECK CONSULTING--;Pasadena, California 
2000--;Present.
    * Security Policy, Certificate Policy, and Certification 
Practice Statement consulting and development; Internet and network 
security policy consulting; PKI legal issue spotting and consulting. 
Representative topics include privacy; identity authentication; 
``qualified'' certificates, security services, 
jurisdiction, and digital and electronic signatures; and local, 
national, and international regulations and case law in both civil 
and common law jurisdictions.
    Customers include:
    * ENSURELINK CERTIFICATION AUTHORITY--;San Diego, California 
2000--;Present. PKI Consultant--;Certificate Policy, 
Certification Practice Statement, and PKI-related consulting.
    * ALPHATRUST CERTIFICATION AUTHORITY-Dallas, Texas 2000. PKI 
Legal Consultant-Certificate Policy, Certification Practice 
Statement, and PKI-delated legal consulting.
    * EXPERIAN--;Orange, California 2000. PKI Legal 
Consultant--;Consulted with in-house legal counsel, defining and 
documenting application-specific, PKI-related legal issues.
    ENTRUST TECHNOLOGIES--;Plano, Texas 1999--;2000. Senior 
Security Consultant-Developed Security Policies, Certificate 
Policies, and Certification Practice Statements for large national, 
multi-national, and international organizations. Worked directly 
with senior client management to determine 1heir PKI requirements. 
Worked with sales force on national opportunities. Worked with 
consulting partners to out source PKI consulting work during peak 
periods and on joint projects. Provided on-site classroom training 
programs lasting 3-;4 days for consulting partners and 
customers on Entrust-specific security and PKI consulting 
methodology and concepts.
    Customers include: Experian, Bell Atlantic, MCI WorldCom, 
Hoffman-LaRoche, State Farm Insurance, First American Real Estate 
Information Services (FAREIS), Ernst & Young, Price Waterhouse 
Coopers, People's Bank of China, Capital One, US Department of 
Agriculture, Fidelity Investments, Illinois Secretary of State, 
First Data Corporation ....
    OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION, STATE OF TEXAS--;Austin, 
Texas 1997--;1998. Strategic Technology Planner-Responsible for 
the implementation of a statewide computer and communication network 
linking all state courts. Developed supporting rules, policies, 
guidelines, and statutes relating to the electronic filing of court 
documents. Prepared cost analysis and preliminary design for the 
Texas Judicial Committee on Information Technology, based on planned 
technology.
    ELECTRONIC COMMERCE SYSTEMS--;Los Angeles, CA 
(1995--;96); Austin, TX 1997-;1998. Principal-Consulting 
company provided electronic commerce consulting services with an 
emphasis on Internet and Web-based security, public-key 
infrastructure (PKI), digital signatures, electronic filing of court 
records, and electronic payments.
    Customers included:
    Wells Fargo Bank--;Los Angeles, California, 1996.
    Database Developer-Designed and developed MS-ACCESS database 
integrating First Interstate Bank commercial loan database with 
Wells Fargo data following bank merger.
    Orange County Superior Court ('intern, part-time)--;Santa 
Ana, California, 1996.
    --;Court Technology Department--;Drafted new court rules 
for electronic filing of pleadings via the Internet for pilot family 
law electronic filing project.
    --;Law and Motion Research Department--;Reviewed, 
researched, and summarized legal motions for judge's Law and Motion 
hearings.
    LAX SHUTTLE TRANSPORTATION CONSORTIUM, El Segundo, California 
1996. Arbitralion Hearing Officer ('part-time)--;Arbitrated 
appeals from personnel disciplinary actions.
    ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, STATE OF 
CALIFORNIA--;Los Angeles, California 1995-;96. Legal Intern 
(part-time)--;Wrote briefs, motions, and memos; performed legal 
research in support of Deputy Attorneys General; assisted in trial 
preparation.
    COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION--;El Segundo, California 
1993--;95. Senior Management Consultant--;Developed 
Information Systems Strategic Plan and Architecture for United 
States Air Force, Materiel Systems Command, Los Angeles Air Force 
Base (LAAFB). Delivered an integrated, base-wide strategic plan 
encompassing reengineered business processes, network operating 
systems, e-mail, and network security for over 25 unique, on-base 
Air Force organizations with disparate computer and network 
platforms.
    TRW SPACE & DEFENSE (ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS GROUP), Redondo 
Beach, CA. 1988-;93. Network Systems Engineer-Led team in 
design, development, and implementation of a reengineered purchase 
order processing system using state-of-the-art client-server 
technology linked with the corporate network. Implemented software 
upgrade for Procurement EDI application .and integrated with batch 
FTP transfer from mainframe. Responsible for implementation, 
administration, and security of multiple, inter-connected local area 
network servers running SCO UNIX, AT&T System V.4, and SUN OS 
over TCP/IP, and DOS/Windows clients.
    PRICE WATERHOUSE, OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES, Los Angeles, 
California 1987. Senior Consultant Created functional model for 
reengineered application in support of ``Los Angeles Employees 
Retirement Association'' (LACERA) software development project 
team.
    XEROX CORPORATION, PRINTING SYSTEMS DIVISION, El Segundo, 
California 1985-;87. Senior Analyst/Programmer-Supervised two 
analyst/programmers and coordinated design, development and 
implementation of purchase order entry system for Printing Systems 
Division.
    TRANSAMERICA CORPORATION, Los Angeles, California 1983-;85. 
Analyst/Programmer-Assisted in design, development, and 
implementation of a nation-wide information system enabling 
insurance agents to submit customer applications for insurance 
coverage directly

[[Page 28637]]

into the mainframe computer in the home office from field offices 
across the country.
    TEACHING EXPERIENCE:
    * UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIXON-LINE, 2001
    Part-time instructor-Risk Management in a CIS Environment 
(Computer Security); Contracts, Ethics, and Intellectual Property;
    * SANTA MONICA COLLEGE, 2001.
    Part-time instructor-introduction to Computer Systems;
    * CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, LOS ANGELES, 2001.
    Part-time insfrucfor-Internet security.
    LOYOLA LAW SCHOOL, Los Angeles, California.
    Juris Doctor--;December 1996.
    Dean's List Honors, 1995.
    California State Bar Foundation--;Public Service Grant 1996.
    UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, Los Angeles, California.
    Master of Science, Information Systems Management--;May 
1990.
    CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, LOS ANGELES, California.
    Bachelor of Science in Business, Minor in Business Information 
Systems--;June 1983.
    Dean's List Honors, 1982.
    ADMITTED TO PRACTICE
    State Bar of Utah--;May 2000, Active Member.
    ARTICLES, STANDARDS ACTIVITY, PRESENTATIONS, AND COURSES TAUGHT:
    PUBLISHED ARTICLES:
    * Electronic Filing of Court Records: Standards and Open Systems 
(West Group 1998);
    * Electronic Court Filings for Attorneys: What, Where, When, Why 
and How (West Group 1998);
    * Into the Breach.'' Understanding Security Issues Involved 
in Commerce on the Internet--;Parts I and II, The DataLaw 
Report, (Clark, Boardman, and Callaghan 1997);
    * The Troubling Truth About ``Trust'' on the Internet, 
Journal of Electronic Commerce, (EDI Group, Ltd. 1997);
    COMPUTER SECURITY, PKI STANDARDS, AND RELATED ACTIVITY:
    * Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) ``RFC 2527,'' 
Internet X. 509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate Policy and 
Certification Practices Framework, attributed contributor (March 
1999);
    * GUIDES--;Guidelines, Methodologies and Standards to set up 
a CA for Digital Signatures, European
    Commission, attributed contributor (June 2000); * American Bar 
Association (ABA), Information Security Committee, Digital Signature 
Guidelines, drafter (August 1996).
    * High-Technology Crime Investigation Association--;Southern 
California Chapter, Member.
    * Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 
(ICANN)--;Member At Large.
    PRESENTATIONS AND COURSES TAUGHT:
    * Risk Management in a CIS Environment, University of Phoenix 
On-line, July-August 2001.
    * Certificate Policies and Certification Practice Statements in 
a Network Trust Model, The Internet Security Conference (TISC), 
October 1999 Boston, MA;
    * Electronic Filing of Court Records: Standards and Open 
Systems, American Bar Association Annual Meeting, Presidential CLE 
1998.
    * Electronic Filing of Court Records: A Conceptual Framework, 
1998 ABA TechShow;
    * Introduction and Intermediate Public-key Infrastructure (PKI); 
Digital Signature, and Related Standards at the State, Federal, and 
International Levels; Certificate Policies and Certification 
Practice Statements (Entrust) 1999;
    * Introduction to UNIX Operating System, San Jacinto Community 
College, Clear Lake Texas, (NASA) 1997.
    FOREIGN LANGUAGES:
    French (Fluent), Spanish (Proficient).



MTC-00029415

From: Robert Heath
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I just wanted to share my opinion on the Microsoft Settlement. 
As it stands, I don1t see how the current proposal of basically 
flooding the market with Windows-based PCs would create or foster a 
competitive environment. I truly hope those making the decisions 
think things through and see this as what seems to be an underhanded 
and sneaky way to comply with a demand without really complying at 
all.
    Robert P Heath
    Panama City, FL



MTC-00029416

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mary Ann Goeppele
15943 NE 139th Place
Woodinville, Washington 98072
January 28, 2002
Attorney General
John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you today on behalf of my husband and myself in 
regards to Microsoft. We both support this company whole-heartedly, 
and we believe this litigation should be ended. During a time when 
we are facing many pressing national and economic issues, we should 
not continue to spend precious time and resources concentrating on 
Microsoft.
    In our opinion, the proposed settlement is more than adequate to 
deal with the issues in this case. Microsoft has pledged to share 
more information with other companies and be monitored by a 
technical oversight committee for compliance. Microsoft has also 
agreed to design future versions of Windows to make it easier to 
install non-Microsoft software. This settlement is complete and 
thorough.
    We are also concerned about the negative effect the continuation 
of this litigation will have on the Seattle area economy. As a 
result of major Boeing lay-offs, Washington State now has one of the 
highest unemployment rates in the country. Dragging out this issue 
further will have an even more detrimental effect on the local 
economy. It is time to end this litigation and focus our energies on 
more pertinent issues. Thank you for your support.
    Sincerely,
    MaryAnn Goeppele



MTC-00029417

From: Susan Handy
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 11:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Susan Handy
4560 Kings Crossing Drive
Kennesaw, GA 30144
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 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,
    Susan J. Handy



MTC-00029418

From: Michael Hemond
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am writing to express my concern with the proposed settlement 
of United States v. Microsoft Corp., Civil No. 98-;1232.
    I am a regular user of both Microsoft Windows and a distribution 
of the operating system known as Linux. I am not a professional 
software developer, but I have at times written software for both 
platforms. In essence, my concern is that the proposed remedy for 
Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior will not restore competition 
even if its intent is enforced and it is effective in curbing 
illegal actions.
    In my view, a key feature of a competitive operating system 
market is that users have

[[Page 28638]]

the option not to purchase or use any given any given operating 
system (OS). Specifically, competition in the OS market will be 
restored only when it is feasible for most users to elect not to 
purchase Microsoft Windows for a given application.
    Unfortunately, a consequence of Microsoft's dominance in many 
markets is that its ``file formats'' have become de facto 
standards. (By ``file formats,'' I am referring to the 
methods used by applications such as Microsoft Word to encode data 
such as text, document layout, images, etc.) These formats are not 
publicly available. Attempts at deciphering certain formats have 
been made by (for example) Sun Microsystems'' StarOffice; 
however, reverse engineering complete functionality is extremely 
difficult and has not yet been accomplished successfully for many 
important formats. Furthermore, changes to such formats are not 
difficult for Microsoft relative to the burden placed on attempted 
competitors in deciphering any new changes.
    The result of this ``standardization'' of proprietary 
formats, combined with Microsoft's policy of releasing the 
applications using these formats only for Windows (although there 
are exceptions, e.g. Microsoft Word for MacOS), is that potentially 
competing OS'es cannot run applications that interoperate reliably 
with these ``standards.'' Thus, anyone wishing to use 
these ``standard'' formats, even for purposes of e.g. 
backwards compatibility with existing documents, must purchase not 
only the relevant Microsoft application but also Microsoft Windows. 
Such a user may also use other OS'es but is effectively required to 
purchase Windows. Please note that I do not believe that Microsoft's 
conduct regarding file formats is illegal, and to my knowledge it 
has not been found to be so in any court of law. However, I do 
believe that it will be impossible to restore competition to the OS 
market unless the issue of file formats is addressed, given the 
dominant position held by Microsoft. If the fruits of Microsoft's 
illegal behavior are to be negated successfully, the final remedy 
must address this issue. An obvious solution would be to require 
from Microsoft full disclosure of information necessary to 
flawlessly read and produce files of any Microsoft application. Such 
a remedy could be similar in spirit to, but more broad than, part 
III.E of the revised proposed Final Judgement (requiring disclosure 
of any communications protocols necessary for interoperating with a 
Microsoft OS).
    Thank you for giving me the opportunity for comment. I look 
forward to a settlement addressing these issues and a more 
competitive operating system market.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Hemond



MTC-00029419

From: Michael Greisman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    My observations of Microsoft's outrageous behaviors in court and 
in business lead me to believe that nothing short of dismemberment 
of the corporation will control its behavior.
    I disapprove of this settlement, and hope that the Justice 
Department presses its case once more for a splitting of Microsoft 
into several completely separate companies.
    Nothing I observed over the years of this case indicates that 
Microsoft ever intends to comply with the intent of a judicial 
ruling. Even if this settlement succeeded in controlling Microsoft's 
behavior for a number of years, I am convinced that Microsoft would 
immediately reknew its anticompetitive actions as soon as its 
restrictions ended.
    Instead, I hope to see Microsoft split into three, four, or more 
separate and unrelated companies: operating systems (e.g. Windows), 
software (e.g. Office), hardware (e.g. XBox), and ISP (MSN). Since 
Microsoft sees fit to attempt to dominate in every popular 
technology-related market, there may be other divisions to split 
off, as well. Only then can we hope for Microsoft to cease using its 
near-monopoly on PC operating systems to leverage its position in 
every other market.
    Thank you for your attention.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Greisman
    Webmaster
    Scanalytics, Inc.
    703-;208-;2230
    [email protected]
    Michael Greisman
    Applications Scientist Scanalytics, Inc.
    [email protected]



MTC-00029420

From: Landon Derentz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Setlment
    Dear judge,
    Microsoft is in my opinion, has broken in the past and will 
continue to break many anti-trust laws with this back-room deal. The 
PFJ will not only allow Microsoft to have an unfair advantage on the 
market, but will also hinder other companies such as Netscape in 
having a fair chance at this thing called capitalism. Please do not 
allow this deal to go through. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Landon Derentz
    907 West 28th St.
    Los Angeles, CA 9007
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00029421

From: juan alejandro urquizo-Soriano
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:54pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Sir:
    Microsoft is a real threat,They are the biggest monopoly I have 
ever seen. Please help the people of the world.
    Juan



MTC-00029422

From: David Gallardo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am strongly opposed to the settlement. It is too little, too 
late.
    In the time between the rulings finding Microsoft guilty of 
violating antitrust laws, Microsoft has increased its dominance of 
the market even further, by continuing to use the same type of 
anticompetive business practices.
    Punishing Microsoft for its business practices will not quash 
innovation as they and their supporters claim. On the contrary, by 
allowing healthy competition to thrive, it will encourage 
innovation.
    Best regards--;
    David Gallardo



MTC-00029423

From: Bruce C. Pippin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:55pm
Subject: I am backing Microsoft
    Well, I don't know what comment I could make that isn't obvious 
to at least a large part of the population. I'm not an historian nor 
am I an attorney. I am but a simple consumer.
    There is little doubt in my mind that every man, woman and child 
on the planet is aware of the case against Microsoft. In at least a 
general sense, we all know the jest of the case. I think consumers 
have already responded to the case brought forward by a small 
handful of attorney's.
    Yes, I think we responded well to the needs of a few attorney 
generals that need to ``protect us'' from 
``evil''. Oh yes ... We all know about the righteous.
    Before, during, and after this case the general public will 
continue to appreciate Microsoft innovations. We will continue to 
purchase their products. I have, over time, used some of Microsoft's 
competitors products (Netscape for example). I have no doubt that 
these competitors did not fail due to practices by Microsoft, but by 
their own hands. Even when given the choice (which we have always 
had) we have made the choice to pick Microsoft products.
    It is sad that only after millions of dollars and several years 
will we all have the opportunity to reflect on current events and 
realize what nincompoops these attorney's are for pursuing a case 
against Microsoft. I back dropping this case against Microsoft 
without any reservations. One citizen ... And there's my one vote.
    No, among other things, I am not an eloquent writer, but I did 
feel compelled to voice an opinion.
    Regards
    Bruce C. Pippin



MTC-00029424

From: Brian Fristensky
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:53pm
Subject: Comments on Microsoft Antitrust case
    Please see attached HTML file.
    Brian Fristensky ... now Microsoft has a new version Department 
of Plant Science I out, Windows XP, which according to University of 
Manitoba I everybody is the ``most reliable Winnipeg, MB R3T 
2N2 CANADA I Windows ever''. To me, this is 
[email protected] I like saying that 
asparagus is Office phone: 204-;474-;6085 I ``the 
most articulate vegetable ever.'' FAX: 204-;474-;7528 
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/frist--;Dave Barry

[[Page 28639]]

    Comments on Civil Action No. 98-;1233 (CKK) United States 
of America vs. Microsoft Corporation State of New York et al. vs. 
Microsoft Corporation by
Brian Fristensky
Associate Professor
Department of Plant Science
University of Manitoba
Winnipeg, MB, Canada R3T 2N2
Phone: 204-;474-;6085 FAX: 204-;474-;7528
[email protected]
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/frist
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kelly
[email protected]
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kelly,
    I wish to comment on the Microsoft Antitrust case awaiting 
judgment in your court. To keep things brief, I shall focus on 
points that I think have not been adequately brought out in the 
proceedings of which I am aware.
    Point of information:
    I am an Associate Professor in the Department of Plant Science 
at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Canada. I have been doing 
research in molecular biology for over 20 years. I was also 
instrumental in the original development of software for DNA 
sequence analysis, beginning in 1979. I am an active contributor to 
the field of Bioinformatics, which has gained recognition recently 
in its role in sequencing the human genome.
    Finally, I am an American citizen.
    A. The effects of Microsoft's practices, and the indirect 
effects of its ``de facto standard''
    1. The Microsoft culture
    It has been well established in court proceedings that Microsoft 
has a long history of premeditated anti competitive practices. The 
main point I want to make is that the decision making process at 
Microsoft is centered around leveraging the existing monopoly to 
maintain the monopoly. When you have the monopoly advantage, you 
choose different strategies than a company that uses different 
premises for decision making, such as ``we need to be 
competitive'' or ``let's make the best product possible, 
and then figure out how to best market it.'' Microsoft's 
decision making, as shown in documents already presented to the 
court, has become entrenched in the practice of monopoly.
    It is this type of mindset that allows Microsoft to treat its 
customers with contempt. The most glaring example is the Mail and 
News program, Outlook Express (OE). OE, through its feature of 
allowing the user to directly click on any icon in an email or news 
message, resulting in the haunch of an application, is fundamentally 
insecure. Even after repeated spread of viruses such as the 
``Melissa'' virus, each time on a world-wide scale, 
Microsoft has refused to eliminate this feature from OE. Similarly, 
the integration of Visual Basic into applications such as MS Word 
makes it possible for viruses to propagate via text documents. In 
both cases, Microsoft has completely ignored security experts who 
advise that these strategies are fundamentally insecure, and remain 
invitations to an endless stream of viruses. Only a company with an 
arrogant certainty of market domination could afford to ignore such 
obvious flaws in its software.
    2. The fact of monopoly results in de facto anti competitive 
effects
    a) ``No one was ever fired for buying Microsoft''. In 
fact, this quote is based on an earlier generation quote ``No 
one was ever fired for buying IBM''. People make decisions not 
based upon whether a product is better, but they buy the MS product 
because it is a safe, defensible decision for which they can't be 
criticized.
    Examples:
    i) Long after NCSA Mosaic, and its successor, Netscape were 
introduced, Microsoft created Internet Explorer (IE). Even though IE 
was clearly an inferior product for several years, it quickly gained 
market share. Further leveraging of the Windows platform resulted in 
the ultimate domination of the browser market, at the expense of 
Netscape.
    ii) RealPlayer and other products from www.real.com virtually 
created the market for browser-based multimedia. Yet, with the 
bundling of Windows Media Player (WMP), this established platform is 
losing ground. Why develop for RealPlayer when you can count on 
everybody having WMP?
    iii) At one time there was a competitive market among word 
processors, spreadsheets, and drawing/presentation programs. Corel 
Word Perfect, Quattro Pro, and CorelDraw/CorelPresents were viable 
competitors to MS Word, MS Excell, and Powerpoint. Today, the MS 
products are overwhelmingly the only products in widespread use.
    In each case, the Microsoft product took over an already 
existing market, not by being better, but simply, because it was 
made by Microsoft. These examples illustrate the point that the de 
facto aspects of the Microsoft monopoly are far more pernicious than 
the deliberate anti competitive practices. Put another way, 
everybody buys Microsoft because everybody has Microsoft. This 
phenomenon ensures the continuation of the Microsoft monopoly. One 
might call this the ``market share cycle''.
    b) Why develop for other platforms when Windows is the only one 
that anyone uses. Just about any software developer will tell you 
that they develop for Windows because it is the dominant desktop 
platform. Although virtually all computer science professors will 
teach their students that software development should aim to be 
platform-independent (for very good reasons), the reality of the 
marketplace is such that this advice is ignored. Developers, not 
surprisingly, develop for platforms with a large market share. For 
most software developers, even developing for the Macintosh platform 
is not worth their while, because it is such a small percentage of 
the market share. The net result is that no one chooses which 
platform to develop for, based on criteria such as quality of the 
platform, or ease of development. There is no choice at all. They 
develop for Windows.
    Put another way, everybody develops for Windows because 
everybody develops for Windows. The process is self-perpetuating.
    c) The self-perpetuating Microsoft monopoly impedes the 
evolution of computing There are alternatives to the desktop 
computing model of MS-Windows. While Macintosh is the most visible 
competitor, Linux is also a credible contender. As well, server-
based solutions such as Sun Microsystem's iPlanet platform (http://
www.sun.com/software/sunone/overview/platform/ ), make it possible 
for both novice users and high-tech users to replace the desktop 
computer entirely with a user-friendly graphic terminal, or to run 
applications remotely through a browser.
    The latter is a viable model as high-speed Internet connections 
proliferate, especially because they eliminate the need for the user 
to do any system administration, and insulate the user from the 
hardware obsolescence, and allow the user to access their computer 
files and applications from anywhere in the world. Such alternative 
solutions are in fact used by a very small number of users. They are 
only slowly gaining ground due to the Microsoft monopoly. The users 
of these alternative platforms would all argue that they do so 
because these platforms are superior to the Windows platform. 
Whether any or all of these alternatives is actually superior is 
moot. A putatively-superior computing platform simply can not 
compete with the de facto Microsoft standard.
    d) The Microsoft monopoly has a negative effect on the quality 
of alternative systems. Even those of us who have chosen to use 
systems other than Microsoft Windows feel the negative impact of the 
monopoly. In my own case, I have operated my research laboratory, 
and performed all my teaching duties, almost exclusively on the Sun 
Unix system. Detailed examples can be found at http://
home.cc.umanitoba.ca/psgendb/nc/. At home, my family and I 
exclusively use Linux.
    While the members of my lab group, myself, and my students have 
often been ahead of the curve in utilizing networked computing 
resources, there have been a number of stumbling blocks resulting 
from the Microsoft monopoly. Probably the greatest problem is the 
fact that the choice of applications available on the Sun Unix 
system or Linux is much smaller than on Windows, due to the much 
smaller desktop market share of these systems. Again, developers 
won't write for these systems because the market share is small, and 
the market share stays small because the applications aren't 
available. When new hardware devices are marketed (eg. CD-;ROM 
drives, printers, video cards etc.) the manufacturers seldom write 
drivers for non-Microsoft platforms. At the same time, they often 
refuse to make their specifications public, forcing the Linux 
community to reverse engineer new models in order to write device 
drivers.
    The market share cycle also influences such fundamental things 
as the ability to purchase alternative systems. All computer stores 
sell computers with MS Windows preloaded. Only a small number of 
vendors will sell Linux pre-loaded, even though Linux is freely 
available. In many cases, a person wishing to run Linux might 
actually have to buy a Windows machine, thus paying for Windows, and 
then erase the hard drive and replace it with Linux. This phenomenon 
is sometimes referred to as the ``Microsoft Tax''. As 
well, because the user has to take the extra step of installing 
Linux, Linux is falsely perceived as being less user friendly. This 
would not be the case if the consumer

[[Page 28640]]

had a choice of buying a pre-installed Linux system.
    The self-perpetuating Microsoft monopoly therefore results in an 
arguably flawed operating system maintaining control of the 
direction of computing, even when better alternatives exist.
    B. A behavioral remedy is inadequate because:
    * It does not break the market share cycle. As long as Microsoft 
remains the ``1 stop shopping'' choice for all software 
needs, no alternative platform, whatever its merits, can compete. 
Even worse, as the Windows platform continues to scale to midrange 
servers, that vertical integration will make the Windows platform 
even harder for IT decision makers to avoid.
    * It guarantees endless litigation. MS has managed to make a 
career out of doing what it wants anyway, while tying up cases in 
courts for years while competitors flounder.
    * It still leaves the MS anti competitive culture intact. The 
Microsoft corporate culture, as the company is now structured, is 
oriented toward perpetuating the monopoly. As long as Microsoft 
remains intact, the culture and attitudes of its employees will be 
perpetuated.
    * One of the recommendations of the joint DO J/Microsoft 
settlement released in September is that Microsoft should be 
required to make its software available on other operating systems 
besides Windows. This might actually result in a further domination 
of the desktop market, because, due to the ``No one ever got 
fired for buying Microsoft'' phenomenon. Software that is 
currently common on non-Windows systems might be pushed out of the 
market by the perceived ``industry standard'' application. 
The goal should not be to encourage MS to grab an even larger market 
share.
    Rather, it should be to eliminate the self-propagating 
domination of the market share that prevents competitors from vying 
for some of that market share.
    C. Microsoft should be broken into several smaller companies
    It is my contention that behavioral remedies will not correct 
the fundamental problems caused by Microsoft's domination of desktop 
computing. My basic point is that if the settlement is to be truly 
fair, then Microsoft should be put onto the same level playing field 
as other companies. It must be forced to make its decisions based on 
a competitive model, not a domination model.
    The structural remedy should be based on the breakup of 
Microsoft into several companies. There may be many possibilities, 
and it must be recognized that the breakup should not make it 
impossible to do business, and should not be structured such that 
its implementation would be disruptive to the world of computer 
users, most of whom currently use Windows and MS Office. One such 
structural remedy would see Microsoft broken into different 
companies specializing in specific product areas:
    1. Operating system
    2. Office (current MS-Office: WORD, Powerpoint etc.)
    3. Internet and Enterprise services (IIS, Internet Explorer, 
Outlook Express)
    4..NET--;API development tools
    5. Applications (graphics, multimedia, etc.)
    I believe that breakup into even 2 companies does not adequately 
curb the monopoly effect. It is too easy for two companies to 
coordinate efforts. It is more difficult for a larger number to 
coordinate. It also requires a greater effort on the customer's part 
to end up buying everything from an MS company, rather than buying 
some from MS, some from IBM, some from Sun, and others from another 
party.
    Other stipulations:
    * None of these companies may use the name 
``Microsoft'' or ``Windows''. Each company will 
independently choose new names (eg. Gatesware, Redmond OS, IIS 
Systems, .NET inc.) This makes it a little more difficult for the 
``Microsoft'' product to be automatically recognized and 
chosen solely for its name. It should be pointed out that MS really 
can't argue that it will be hurt one bit by a name change. Name 
changes in very large corporations happen all the time, especially 
in cases of mergers and acquisitions (eg. Esso to Exxon, AgrEvo to 
Aventis, Allegheny Airlines to USAir)
    The resultant companies are not permitted free access to 
resources of other former MS companies. They must license use of 
software, or access to source code, on the same terms as any other 
OEM, developer, or other partner. That is, if a former MS company 
licenses something from another former MS company, the same 
licensing terms must be made available to all interested OEMs or 
developers.
    MS companies are not allowed to dictate terms of inclusion or 
exclusion of other 3rd party software to any OEM or developer 
wishing to license products of former MS companies.
    Current Microsoft corporate structure: http://www.microsoft.com/
press pass/corpprofile.asp
    One might argue that a structural remedy is somehow 
``unfair'' or overly punitive. However, Microsoft holds no 
sacrosanct position of privilege. There is no imperative that 
Microsoft must remain as a pillar of the American way. It is not 
entrenched in our constitution. It is simply a company that was 
successful at a certain business strategy, at the expense of the 
ruin of many other companies.
    D. Benefits of a structural remedy
    1) It works automatically, and requires less monitoring.
    2) It lets smaller companies compete piece by piece with MS, 
rather than having to compete with the full bundled MS array of 
products.
    Today, an OEM or an IT department really makes few decisions 
about what to put on their new computers. The choice of OS is a 
``no-brainer'', because everybody uses Windows, and most 
software is developed for Windows. MS-Office is usually bundled with 
Windows, so there's no choice there. With WindowsXP, a full 
multimedia package is bundled--;again no decision is made. If 
bundling were eliminated, OEMs and IT departments might return to 
making decisions about what kind of components best meet their 
needs, rather than just ``voting the straight ticket'' for 
Microsoft.
    3) Business and home computer users will not be harmed by a 
Microsoft breakup.
    As non-Windows users like myself have demonstrated, one can work 
just as easily on non-Windows platforms. Especially in the Open 
Software sector, there are alternatives for most of the main types 
of applications available on the Windows platform, including 
applications for office tasks (word processors, spreadsheets, 
drawing and presentation, calendars), multimedia (MIDI, MP3, video 
etc.), Internet (web browsers, mailers, FTP, telnet etc.) At the 
enterprise level, server-oriented tasks such as database management, 
web serving, application serving and such are strongly represented 
on alternative platforms such as Unix or IBM's AS400. As well, a 
Microsoft breakup doesn't mean that Microsoft will go away. It 
simply means that the consumer will have to explicitly choose 
Microsoft, rather than having no choice at all.
    4) The evolution of computing will not be driven by a single 
computing platform.
    Regardless of whether or not one believes that the Windows 
platform is good or inferior, the fact remains that it is a 
monolithic platform. For the average desktop user, Windows is 
synonymous with computing. The more deeply intertwined the different 
parts of Windows are allowed to become, the less chance there will 
be for evolution of ANY part in a way other than that decreed by 
Microsoft. Microsoft's current strategy is to continue evolving its 
desktop model of computing to higher levels of computing, such as 
enterprise file:///C/win/temp/tristens. computing or 
supercomputing, where it is a very poor model. Yet, the sheer 
inertia of Microsoft's market share will drive this system even into 
places in which it is not an appropriate solution. A set of smaller 
companies derived from Microsoft would not have the same power over 
the development of computing, allowing for greater diversity, which 
is key to any evolutionary process.
    E. Closing remarks
    Perhaps as good an argument as any from breaking up Microsoft is 
because computing has become central to almost every aspect of life 
in the modem world. Computing is unlike, say the oil industry, or 
the food industry. No car runs on just one brand of gasoline, and 
people buy a variety of foods because they like variety. When you 
couple our great dependence on computers in all walks of life, with 
the monolithic structure nature of desktop computing as controlled 
by a single company, the result is that the company that dominates 
that computing infrastructure has some degree of control on most 
aspects of our modem life. The level of power wielded by Microsoft 
is frightening. The fact that they had sufficient clout to cause the 
US Justice Department to reverse its position on a breakup is a 
chilling example of that power. The fact that Microsoft has 
maintained its arrogant domination of the computer market, and been 
allowed to do so with impunity, should be cause for alarm.
    It is not unAmerican for any branch of government, executive, 
legislative or judicial, to limit the power of a private 
corporation, if that corporation is usurping powers that should 
rightly be exercised by the government or by the free market. Bill 
Gates was not elected by voters. The management

[[Page 28641]]

of Microsoft is not accountable to the public. The antitrust laws 
were wisely enacted in recognition of the fact that non-elected 
entities such as corporations could sometimes wield too much power. 
It is the job of the judiciary to ensure that they are not allowed 
to do so.
    Comments on Civil Action No. 98-;1233 (CKK) United States 
of America vs. Microsoft Corporation State of New York et al. vs. 
Microsoft Corporation by Brian Fristensky
Associate Professor
Department of Plant Science
University of Manitoba
Winnipeg, MB, Canada R3T 2N2
Phone: 204-;474-;6085 FAX: 204-;474-;7528
[email protected]
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/frist
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kelly
[email protected]
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kelly,
    I wish to comment on the Microsoft Antitrust case awaiting 
judgment in your court. To keep things brief, I shall focus on 
points that I think have not been adequately brought out in the 
proceedings of which I am aware.
    Point of information:
    I am an Associate Professor in the Department of Plant Science 
at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Canada. I have been doing 
research in molecular biology for over 20 years. I was also 
instrumental in the original development of software for DNA 
sequence analysis, beginning in 1979. I am an active contributor to 
the field of Bioinformatics, which has gained recognition recently 
in its role in sequencing the human genome.
    Finally, I am an American citizen.
    A. The effects of Microsoft's practices, and the indirect 
effects of its ``de facto standard''
    1. The Microsoft culture
    It has been well established in court proceedings that Microsoft 
has a long history of premeditated anti competitive practices. The 
main point I want to make is that the decision making process at 
Microsoft is centered around leveraging the existing monopoly to 
maintain the monopoly. When you have the monopoly advantage, you 
choose different strategies than a company that uses different 
premises for decision making, such as ``we need to be 
competitive'' or ``let's make the best product possible, 
and then figure out how to best market it.'' Microsoft's 
decision making, as shown in documents already presented to the 
court, has become entrenched in the practice of monopoly.
    It is this type of mindset that allows Microsoft to treat its 
customers with contempt. The most glaring example is the Mail and 
News program, Outlook Express (OE). OE, through its feature of 
allowing the user to directly click on any icon in an email or news 
message, resulting in the launch of an application, is fundamentally 
insecure. Even after repeated spread of viruses such as the 
``Melissa'' virus, each time on a world-wide scale, 
Microsoft has refused to eliminate this feature from OE. Similarly, 
the integration of Visual Basic into applications such as MS Word 
makes it possible for viruses to propagate via text documents. In 
both cases, Microsoft has completely ignored security experts who 
advise that these strategies are fundamentally insecure, and remain 
invitations to an endless stream of viruses. Only a company with an 
arrogant certainty of market domination could afford to ignore such 
obvious flaws in its software.
    2. The fact of monopoly results in de facto anti competitive 
effects
    a) ``No one was ever fired for buying Microsoft''. In 
fact, this quote is based on an earlier generation quote ``No 
one was ever fired for buying IBM''. People make decisions not 
based upon whether a product is better, but they buy the MS product 
because it is a safe, defensible decision for which they can't be 
criticized.
    Examples:
    i) Long after NCSA Mosaic, and its successor, Netscape were 
introduced, Microsoft created Internet Explorer (IE). Even though IE 
was clearly an inferior product for several years, it quickly gained 
market share. Further leveraging of the Windows platform resulted in 
the ultimate domination of the browser market, at the expense of 
Netscape.
    ii) RealPlayer and other products from www.real.com virtually 
created the market for browser-based multimedia. Yet, with the 
bundling of Windows Media Player (WMP), this established platform is 
losing ground. Why develop for RealPlayer when you can count on 
everybody having WMP?
    iii) At one time there was a competitive market among word 
processors, spreadsheets, and drawing/presentation programs. Corel 
Word Perfect, Quattro Pro, and CorelDraw/CorelPresents were viable 
competitors to MS Word, MS Excell, and Powerpoint. Today, the MS 
products are overwhelmingly the only products in widespread use.
    In each case, the Microsoft product took over an already 
existing market, not by being better, but simply, because it was 
made by Microsoft. These examples illustrate the point that the de 
facto aspects of the Microsoft monopoly are far more pernicious than 
the deliberate anti competitive practices. Put another way, 
everybody buys Microsoft because everybody has Microsoft. This 
phenomenon ensures the continuation of the Microsoft monopoly. One 
might call this the ``market share cycle''.
    b) Why develop for other platforms when Windows is the only one 
that anyone uses. Just about any software developer will tell you 
that they develop for Windows because it is the dominant desktop 
platform. Although virtually all computer science professors will 
teach their students that software development should aim to be 
platform-independent (for very good reasons), the reality of the 
marketplace is such that this advice is ignored. Developers, not 
surprisingly, develop for platforms with a large market share. For 
most software developers, even developing for the Macintosh platform 
is not worth their while, because it is such a small percentage of 
the market share. The net result is that no one chooses which 
platform to develop for, based on criteria such as quality of the 
platform, or ease of development. There is no choice at all. They 
develop for Windows.
    Put another way, everybody develops for Windows because 
everybody develops for Windows. The process is self-perpetuating.
    c) The self-perpetuating Microsoft monopoly impedes the 
evolution of computing There are alternatives to the desktop 
computing model of MS-Windows. While Macintosh is the most visible 
competitor, Linux is also a credible contender. As well, server-
based solutions such as Sun Microsystem's iPlanet platform (http://
www.sun.com/software/sunone/overview/platform/ ), make it possible 
for both novice users and high-tech users to replace the desktop 
computer entirely with a user-friendly graphic terminal, or to run 
applications remotely through a browser.
    The latter is a viable model as high-speed Internet connections 
proliferate, especially because they eliminate the need for the user 
to do any system administration, and insulate the user from the 
hardware obsolescence, and allow the user to access their computer 
files and applications from anywhere in the world. Such alternative 
solutions are in fact used by a very small number of users. They are 
only slowly gaining ground due to the Microsoft monopoly. The users 
of these alternative platforms would all argue that they do so 
because these platforms are superior to the Windows platform. 
Whether any or all of these alternatives is actually superior is 
moot. A putatively-superior computing platform simply can not 
compete with the de facto Microsoft standard.
    d) The Microsoft monopoly has a negative effect on the quality 
of alternative systems. Even those of us who have chosen to use 
systems other than Microsoft Windows feel the negative impact of the 
monopoly. In my own case, I have operated my research laboratory, 
and performed all my teaching duties, almost exclusively on the Sun 
Unix system. Detailed examples can be found at http://
home.cc.umanitoba.ca/psgendb/nc/. At home, my family and I 
exclusively use Linux.
    While the members of my lab group, myself, and my students have 
often been ahead of the curve in utilizing networked computing 
resources, there have been a number of stumbling blocks resulting 
from the Microsoft monopoly. Probably the greatest problem is the 
fact that the choice of applications available on the Sun Unix 
system or Linux is much smaller than on Windows, due to the much 
smaller desktop market share of these systems. Again, developers 
won't write for these systems because the market share is small, and 
the market share stays small because the applications aren't 
available. When new hardware devices are marketed (eg. CD-ROM 
drives, printers, video cards etc.) the manufacturers seldom write 
drivers for non-Microsoft platforms. At the same time, they often 
refuse to make their specifications public, forcing the Linux 
community to reverse engineer new models in order to write device 
drivers.
    The market share cycle also influences such fundamental things 
as the ability to purchase alternative systems. All computer stores 
sell computers with MS Windows preloaded. Only a small number of 
vendors will sell Linux pre-loaded, even though Linux is freely 
available. In many cases, a person wishing to run Linux might 
actually have to buy a Windows machine, thus paying for Windows, and 
then erase the hard drive

[[Page 28642]]

and replace it with Linux. This phenomenon is sometimes referred to 
as the ``Microsoft Tax''. As well, because the user has to 
take the extra step of installing Linux, Linux is falsely perceived 
as being less user friendly. This would not be the case if the 
consumer had a choice of buying a pre-installed Linux system. flawed 
operating system maintaining control of the direction of computing, 
even when better alternatives exist.
    B. A behavioral remedy is inadequate because:
    * It does not break the market share cycle. As long as Microsoft 
remains the ``1 stop shopping'' choice for all software 
needs, no alternative platform, whatever its merits, can compete. 
Even worse, as the Windows platform continues to scale to midrange 
servers, that vertical integration will make the Windows platform 
even harder for IT decision makers to avoid.
    * It guarantees endless litigation. MS has managed to make a 
career out of doing what it wants anyway, while tying up cases in 
courts for years while competitors flounder.
    * It still leaves the MS anti competitive culture intact. The 
Microsoft corporate culture, as the company is now structured, is 
oriented toward perpetuating the monopoly. As long as Microsoft 
remains intact, the culture and attitudes of its employees will be 
perpetuated.
    * One of the recommendations of the joint DO J/Microsoft 
settlement released in September is that Microsoft should be 
required to make its software available on other operating systems 
besides Windows. This might actually result in a further domination 
of the desktop market, because, due to the ``No one ever got 
fired for buying Microsoft'' phenomenon. Software that is 
currently common on non-Windows systems might be pushed out of the 
market by the perceived ``industry standard'' application. 
The goal should not be to encourage MS to grab an even larger market 
share.
    Rather, it should be to eliminate the self-propagating 
domination of the market share that prevents competitors from vying 
for some of that market share.
    C. :Microsoft should be broken into several smaller companies
    It is my contention that behavioral remedies will not correct 
the fundamental problems caused by Microsoft's domination of desktop 
computing. My basic point is that if the settlement is to be truly 
fair, then Microsoft should be put onto the same level playing field 
as other companies. It must be forced to make its decisions based on 
a competitive model, not a domination model.
    The structural remedy should be based on the breakup of 
Microsoft into several companies. There may be many possibilities, 
and it must be recognized that the breakup should not make it 
impossible to do business, and should not be structured such that 
its implementation would be disruptive to the world of computer 
users, most of whom currently use Windows and MS Office. One such 
structural remedy would see Microsoft broken into different 
companies specializing in specific product areas:
    1. Operating system
    2. Office (current MS-Office: WORD, Powerpoint etc.)
    3. Internet and Enterprise services (IIS, Internet Explorer, 
Outlook Express)
    4..NET--;API development tools
    5. Applications (graphics, multimedia, etc.)
    I believe that breakup into even 2 companies does not adequately 
curb the monopoly effect. It is too easy for two companies to 
coordinate efforts. It is more difficult for a larger number to 
coordinate. It also requires a greater effort on the customer's part 
to end up buying everything from an MS company, rather than buying 
some from MS, some from IBM, some from Sun, and others from another 
party.
    Other stipulations:
    * None of these companies may use the name 
``Microsoft'' or ``Windows''. Each company will 
independently choose new names (eg. Gatesware, Redmond OS, IIS 
Systems, .NET inc.) This makes it a little more difficult for the 
``Microsoft'' product to be automatically recognized and 
chosen solely for its name. It should be pointed out that MS really 
can't argue that it will be hurt one bit by a name change. Name 
changes in very large corporations happen all the time, especially 
in cases of mergers and acquisitions (eg. Esso to Exxon, AgrEvo to 
Aventis, Allegheny Airlines to USAir)
    The resultant companies are not permitted free access to 
resources of other former MS companies. They must license use of 
software, or access to source code, on the same terms as any other 
OEM, developer, or other partner. That is, if a former MS company 
licenses something from another former MS company, the same 
licensing terms must be made available to all interested OEMs or 
developers.
    MS companies are not allowed to dictate terms of inclusion or 
exclusion of other 3rd party software to any OEM or developer 
wishing to license products of former MS companies.
    Current Microsoft corporate structure: http://www.microsoft.com/
press pass/corpprofile.asp
    One might argue that a structural remedy is somehow 
``unfair'' or overly punitive. However, Microsoft holds no 
sacrosanct position of privilege. There is no imperative that 
Microsoft must remain as a pillar of the American way. It is not 
entrenched in our constitution. It is simply a company that was 
successful at a certain business strategy, at the expense of the 
ruin of many other companies.
    D. Benefits of a structural remedy
    1) It works automatically, and requires less monitoring.
    2) It lets smaller companies compete piece by piece with MS, 
rather than having to compete with the full bundled MS array of 
products.
    Today, an OEM or an IT department really makes few decisions 
about what to put on their new computers. The choice of OS is a 
``no-brainer'', because everybody uses Windows, and most 
software is developed for Windows. MS-Office is usually bundled with 
Windows, so there's no choice there. With WindowsXP, a full 
multimedia package is bundled--;again no decision is made. If 
bundling were eliminated, OEMs and IT departments might return to 
making decisions about what kind of components best meet their 
needs, rather than just ``voting the straight ticket'' for 
Microsoft.
    3) Business and home computer users will not be harmed by a 
Microsoft breakup.
    As non-Windows users like myself have demonstrated, one can work 
just as easily on non-Windows platforms. Especially in the Open 
Software sector, there are alternatives for most of the main types 
of applications available on the Windows platform, including 
applications for office tasks (word processors, spreadsheets, 
drawing and presentation, calendars), multimedia (MIDI, MP3, video 
etc.), Internet (web browsers, mailers, FTP, telnet etc.) At the 
enterprise level, server-oriented tasks such as database management, 
web serving, application serving and such are strongly represented 
on alternative platforms such as Unix or IBM's AS400. As well, a 
Microsoft breakup doesn't mean that Microsoft will go away. It 
simply means that the consumer will have to explicitly choose 
Microsoft, rather than having no choice at all.
    4) The evolution of computing will not be driven by a single 
computing platform.
    Regardless of whether or not one believes that the Windows 
platform is good or inferior, the fact remains that it is a 
monolithic platform. For the average desktop user, Windows is 
synonymous with computing. The more deeply intertwined the different 
parts of Windows are allowed to become, the less chance there will 
be for evolution of ANY part in a way other than that decreed by 
Microsoft. Microsoft's current strategy is to continue evolving its 
desktop model of computing to higher levels of computing, such as 
enterprise computing or supercomputing, where it is a very poor 
model. Yet, the sheer inertia of Microsoft's market share will drive 
this system even into places in which it is not an appropriate 
solution. A set of smaller companies derived from Microsoft would 
not have the same power over the development of computing, allowing 
for greater diversity, which is key to any evolutionary process.
    E. Closing remarks
    Perhaps as good an argument as any from breaking up Microsoft is 
because computing has become central to almost every aspect of life 
in the modern world. Computing is unlike, say the oil industry, or 
the food industry. No car runs on just one brand of gasoline, and 
people buy a variety of foods because they like variety. When you 
couple our great dependence on computers in all walks of life, with 
the monolithic structure nature of desktop computing as controlled 
by a single company, the result is that the company that dominates 
that computing infrastructure has some degree of control on most 
aspects of our modern life. The level of power wielded by Microsoft 
is frightening. The fact that they had sufficient clout to cause the 
US Justice Department to reverse its position on a breakup is a 
chilling example of that power. The fact that Microsoft has 
maintained its arrogant domination of the computer market, and been 
allowed to do so with impunity, should be cause for alarm.
    It is not unAmerican for any branch of government, executive, 
legislative or judicial, to limit the power of a private 
corporation,

[[Page 28643]]

if that corporation is usurping powers that should rightly be 
exercised by the government or by the free market. Bill Gates was 
not elected by voters. The management of Microsoft is not 
accountable to the public. The antitrust laws were wisely enacted in 
recognition of the fact that non-elected entities such as 
corporations could sometimes wield too much power. It is the job of 
the judiciary to ensure that they are not allowed to do so.



MTC-00029426

From: James R. Bergman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    This is to advise you that I strongly believe that the terms of 
the proposed settlement--;which have met or gone beyond the 
findings of the Court of Appeals ruling--;are reasonable and 
fair to all parties involved. This settlement represents the best 
opportunity for Microsoft and the industry to move forward.
    I say this with a 30-year successful business career behind me 
and, hopefully, even greater success ahead. But should this 
settlement not be finalized and a harsher penalty imposed on 
Microsoft, I know, not believe, that it will affect my business and 
most all general, old-economy businesses in a severely negative and 
expensive way. Similarly, the so-called new economy industries will 
not benefit though those that are envious of Microsoft's success and 
those who cannot keep up with Microsoft's efficient execution of its 
business plan may feel differently.
    I strongly request that you support this settlement to the 
greatest degree possible and do all things available to you to 
assure its being finalized. As both a business owner and home user 
who has and does use many software programs as well as spends quite 
a few hours a week on the Internet, I am grateful for all the many 
wonderful things that Microsoft has accomplished and have always 
made available to me at reasonable and fair prices that have aided 
me in my business and family life. Please feel free to contact me if 
you wish. Should you be speaking to Joel Klein, please say 
``Hi'' from an old fraternity brother (we were in Alpha 
Epsilon Pi, Class of 1967, Columbia College of Columbia University, 
NYC).
    Sincerely,
    James R. Bergman
    910 S. Delhi Street
    Philadelphia, PA 19147-;3810
    Phone:(215) 922-;9145
    Fax:(215) 922-;4803
    Mobile:(215) 284-;1676
    E-mail:[email protected]



MTC-00029427

From: JVMiller23
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
James V. Miller
P.O.Box 12369
Mill Creek, Wa 98082
January 26, 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 inform you of my position regarding 
the Microsoft antitrust dispute. I support Microsoft in this dispute 
and feel that the litigation that has gone on is costly and a waste 
of resources. I support the Microsoft settlement reached in 
November, and I sincerely hope there will be no further action 
against Microsoft at the federal level.
    This settlement was reached after extensive negotiations. 
Microsoft has agreed to all terms of this agreement, including terms 
that extend well beyond the original issues of this lawsuit, all for 
the sake of wrapping it up. Under this agreement, Microsoft has 
agreed to grant computer makers broad new rights to configure 
Windows to promote non-Microsoft software programs that compete with 
programs included within Windows. Microsoft has also agreed to 
license its Window operating system products to the 20 largest 
computer makers. This settlement will benefit companies attempting 
to compete.
    Most importantly, this settlement will help boost our lagging 
economy and will benefit consumers. Microsoft should be allowed to 
devote its resources and talent to designing innovative products, 
rather than litigation. Thank you for your support.
    Sincerely,



MTC-00029428

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:54pm
Subject: MIcrosoft Case
Jasper Shau
Eighth Grade
    I think that Microsoft should be allowed to settle. Because 
Microsoft used itswindows system to distribute Internet explorer, it 
would a kind of monopoly. However, Microsoft does not make any money 
off the Internet explorer browser. Netscape is being destroyed 
because they make their money off their browser. If Microsoft pays 
enough money, and if the money goes to Netscape, it should be 
allowed to settle.Microsoft had already made several concessions 
???We kept making concessions, and the government kept coming back 
with unreasonable demands, wanting us toinstall Netscape for 
them,??? Gates said. ???It was like hearing ???Netscape this, 
Netscape that,??? all the time.??? Obviously the federal government 
is pushing Microsoft too hard. Though if Microsoft monopolizes the 
browser they may charge very high fees for using it,the government 
would not allow them then. Even so, Microsoft says that theyhave no 
intention of doing so: ``'' Gates says. ``In no way 
are we eliminating choice.'' He also bristles at the notion 
that Microsoft wants to turn theInternet into its personal toll 
road. ``We'll get our revenue from selling great 
software.'' In the Pac-bell incident, Pac-bell was split 
because it had amonopoly of basically the entire market. That is one 
extreme past example.
    CC:ASKDOJ



MTC-00029429

From: Mike Edwards
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft is a monopoly. That is the only way I can find to 
describe a company who, for years, has concentrated on squashing 
competitors rather than improving their shoddy products.
    I have used Microsoft products in various capacities for many 
years--;starting with MS-DOS 2.10 on a home PC to Windows NT 4 / 
Windows 2000 in a work environment (as a system administrator, no 
less). All versions of Microsoft Windows I have used, starting with 
3.0, have experienced severe reliability problems--;and these 
problems have grown over time. The rest of their software seems to 
follow this model.
    In stark contrast, there have been quite a few companies over 
the years who have tried to improve upon the deficencies in 
Microsoft's products, only to be bought out or forced out of the 
market by unsavory business practices (bundling, etc.), thereby 
leaving the market barren of competetors. Netscape is only the most 
recent example of predatory practices that Microsoft has been using 
to boost their position for years.
    Microsoft is fond of claiming they ``innovate''. I 
don't think Microsoft has innovated a single thing in their entire 
existence, instead choosing to buy or steal technology belonging to 
others. So much for innovation.
    Please, don't let this settlement go through. It will just 
validate Microsoft's position of providing the worst products 
possible. Given their history of unreliable software with an amazing 
number of security holes, I would think that this is the last thing 
you'd want to do.
    Mike Edwards



MTC-00029430

From: Joe Bustamante
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As I understand the meaning and nature of the Tunney Act 
statutory process, its principle goal is to ensure that the people 
who are invariably the principle victims of all antitrust 
violations, that is to say the general public, have a voice in 
determining what is and is not in their own best interests. It seems 
self evident that when deciding how to remedy violations of law 
which harm the general public, the first principle of guarding the 
public interest should be to minimize the recurrence of violations 
by making certain the consequences to the violator always outweigh 
the rewards. It is unavailing to resolve the case if the violator is 
allowed to profit from his misdeeds in any fashion, since this only 
encourages others to show even greater contempt for the law. It is 
similarly fruitless to go to great expense proving in court the 
facts of eight such violations and then allow the violator to keep

[[Page 28644]]

the rewards of them all, and even continue committing one or more. 
Such seems to be the case in this matter, the United States v. 
Microsoft, Civil Action No. 98-;1232 (CKK).
    After carefully reading and researching the findings of fact and 
conclusions of law of the District Court, as well as the unanimous 
opinion of the Circuit Court of Appeals, it is apparent that the 
United States Department of Justice, assisted by the attorneys 
general of several of the States, made a very compelling and 
conclusive case to establish that Microsoft Corporation had engaged 
in an illegal campaign of antitrust violations in order to 
strengthen and defend their monopoly in PC operating system 
software.
    The District Court ruled firmly that Microsoft had committed a 
large number of violations, and the Court of Appeals unanimously 
upheld eight of those. In order to analyze the effectiveness of the 
remedy, the first thing we must do is ensure that Microsoft is not 
allowed to continue or profit from any of the eight distinct 
violations identified by the appellate court. I will begin this 
analysis with a list of the nine violations as they were expressed 
in X sections of the appeals court's opinion, along with a brief 
quote of the appeals court opinion regarding each distinct violation 
(I preserve the heading numbers used by the court, omitting those 
which were overturned or remanded).
    1. Licenses Issued to Original Equipment 
Manufacturers--;``In sum, we hold that with the exception 
of the one restriction prohibiting automatically launched 
alternative interfaces, all the OEM license restrictions at issue 
represent uses of Microsoft's market power to protect its monopoly, 
unredeemed by any legitimate justification. The restrictions 
therefore violate s 2 of the Sherman Act.
    2. Integration of IE and Windows--;``Accordingly, we 
hold that Microsoft's exclusion of IE from the Add/Remove Programs 
utility and its commingling of browser and operating system code 
constitute exclusionary conduct, in violation of s 2.''
    3. Agreements with Internet Access 
Providers--;``Accordingly, we affirm the District Court's 
decision holding that Microsoft's exclusive contracts with IAPs are 
exclusionary devices, in violation of s 2 of the Sherman Act.''
    4. Dealings with Internet Content Providers, Independent 
Software Vendors, and Apple Computer--;``Microsoft having 
offered no procompetitive justification for its exclusive dealing 
arrangements with the ISVs, we hold that those arrangements violate 
s 2 of the Sherman Act.''--;and--;``Accordingly, 
we hold that the exclusive deal with Apple is exclusionary, in 
violation of s 2 of the Sherman Act.''
    5. Java--;``Because the cumulative effect of the deals 
is anticompetitive and because Microsoft has no procompetitive 
justification for them, we hold that the provisions in the First 
Wave Agreements requiring use of Microsoft's JVM as the default are 
exclusionary, in violation of the Sherman 
Act.''--;and--;``Therefore we affirm the 
conclusion that Microsoft's threats to Intel were exclusionary, in 
violation of of the Sherman Act.''--;``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 s 2 of the Sherman 
Act.''
    Semantically broken, these quotations uphold nine distinct acts 
as violations of the Sherman Act:
    1. OEM license restrictions which prohibited many actions which 
might promote Netscape software in Microsoft's dominated market, 
excepting one which prohibited automatically launching alternative 
interfaces.
    2. Exclusion of Internet Explorer from the Add/Remove Programs 
utility to force users to accept IE willy-nilly.
    3. Commingling of brower and operting system code to further 
force users to accept IE willy-nilly.
    4. Microsoft's exclusive contracts with Internet Access 
Providers to exlude Netscape from those distribution channels.
    5. Microsoft's similar (to #4) dealings with ISV and ICPs to 
exclude Netscape from still other distribution channels.
    6. Microsoft's exclusive dealings with Apple Computer to limit 
Netscape distribution for MacOS.
    7. Microsoft's First Wave Agreements requiring the use of 
Microsoft's JVM.
    8. Microsoft's threatening of Intel, which led to Intel 
abandoning nascent technologies related to Java which they had 
already invested considerable effort in researching.
    9. Microsoft's campaign to deceive their own customers in order 
to trick them into writing Microsoft dependent applications when 
they thought they were writing cross platform Java applications.
    After studying the Proposed Final Judgement in this case between 
the United States and Microsoft, I see that points 3 and 9 are 
completely unaddressed, and indeed in case 3 Microsoft is being 
given tacit government approval to continue and extend the practice 
of commingling operating system code with the code of any 
application they wish to dominate. Indeed Microsoft has already done 
this to some measure in their latest operating system release, 
Windows XP. They are not only continuing to commingle browser and 
operating system to make IE inextricable from Windows, but are 
extending the practice to now encompass code previously associated 
with multimedia authoring and editing. How does the Department of 
Justice explain this apparent endorsement of a practice ruled 
illegal by a United States Court of Appeals?
    As for the other 7 violations, they are only imperfectly 
addressed. Virtually every restriction is laden with elaborate and 
ofttimes contradictory exceptions. Overriding all of these is the 
stipulation that Microsoft has sole authority to define what is and 
is not the operating system. This is carte blanche for Microsoft to 
continue their illegal practice of extinguishing nascent 
technologies through ``integration''. This settlement is 
going to require constant referral back to the court to re-explain 
matters which were already clearly stated by the Court of Appeals.
    In short, this agreement encourages Microsoft to continue and 
expand on their illegal practices and encourages others in like 
circumstances to do the same. It is totally contrary to the public 
interest, in my opinion.
    Jose Bustamante
    Austin, TX 78729
    [email protected]



MTC-00029432

From: Joe Byrd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Filing
    The attached document is for the Microsoft case.
    If you have any questions, please contact, Joe Byrd at 
918-;453-;8100. Thank you
Email Address: [email protected]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    The National Native American Chamber of Commerce represents 
Native American and other minority businesses trying to compete in 
the New Economy. However, with monopolistic players and absurd 
settlements such as this one, we will continue to be excluded. That 
is why we are glad to witness that some state Attorneys General, 
including California's Bill Lockyer, are resisting this regrettable 
deal and asking the courts to impose a real solution. They deserve 
our support.
    The proposed settlement of the Microsoft antitrust case is 
little more than a collection of loopholes that amounts to tacit 
approval for the company's history of mistreating its competitors. 
What is more, much of the criticism of those opposing the settlement 
misses three points in particular. First, the proposed settlement 
does not prohibit Microsoft from bundling its software and 
tightening its grip on Internet applications--;including MSN 
portal, instant messaging, e-mail, and streaming-media applications. 
Second, yes, Microsoft must release some programming code to 
competitors, but only after it has developed its own products. And, 
third and finally, the independent watchdog group called for in the 
settlement is all bark and no bite--;it has no teeth for 
enforcement.
    We, the taxpayers, suffer in the long run. Other antitrust 
violators monitoring the outcome of this case will have a blueprint 
furnished for them detailing a course of action that will allow them 
to skirt out legal system. It is a pleasure to side with the state 
attorney general in admonishing what Justice Department attorneys 
hide behind in this farce, ``the substantial likelihood that 
Microsoft would avail itself of all opportunities'' to appeal.
    Bill Lockyer is right to reject a settlement would essentially 
allow Microsoft to set its own rules and terms for complying with 
that settlement. Such an outcome is unacceptable--;Microsoft has 
played ``fast and loose'' with U.S. antitrust law over and 
over through the years and has been found guilty in a number of 
jurisdictions of abusing its power.
    Sincerely
    Robert Ferrell

[[Page 28645]]

    5230 Pacific Concourse Drive
    Suite 20
    Los Angeles, CA 90045
    Email Address: [email protected]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    The National Native American Chamber of Commerce represents 
Native American and other minority businesses trying to compete in 
the New Economy. However, with monopolistic players and absurd 
settlements such as this one, we will continue to be excluded. That 
is why we are glad to witness that some state Attorneys General, 
including California's Bill Lockyer, are resisting this regrettable 
deal and asking the courts to impose a real solution. They deserve 
our support.
    The proposed settlement of the Microsoft antitrust case is 
little more than a collection of loopholes that amounts to tacit 
approval for the company's history of mistreating its competitors. 
What is more, much of the criticism of those opposing the settlement 
misses three points in particular.
    First, the proposed settlement does not prohibit Microsoft from 
bundling its software and tightening its grip on Internet 
applications--;including MSN portal, instant messaging, e-mail, 
and streaming-media applications. Second, yes, Microsoft must 
release some programming code to competitors, but only after it has 
developed its own products. And, third and finally, the independent 
watchdog group called for in the settlement is all bark and no 
bite--;it has no teeth for enforcement.
    We, the taxpayers, suffer in the long run. Other antitrust 
violators monitoring the outcome of this case will have a blueprint 
furnished for them detailing a course of action that will allow them 
to skirt out legal system. It is a pleasure to side with the state 
attorney general in admonishing what Justice Department attorneys 
hide behind in this farce, ``the substantial likelihood that 
Microsoft would avail itself of all opportunities'' to appeal.
    Bill Lockyer is right to reject a settlement would essentially 
allow Microsoft to set its own rules and terms for complying with 
that settlement. Such an outcome is unacceptable--;Microsoft has 
played ``fast and loose'' with U.S. antitrust law over and 
over through the years and has been found guilty in a number of 
jurisdictions of abusing its power.
    Sincerely
    Robert Ferrell
    5230 Pacific Concourse Drive
    Suite 20
    Los Angeles, CA 90045



MTC-00029433

From: Linda Starnes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I wish to express my happiness upon hearing of the Attorney 
General's decision to end the Justice Department's antitrust lawsuit 
against Microsoft. However, I am not happy about the fact that it 
took the government three years to end its costly, taxpayer-funded 
lawsuit. Under the agreement, computer manufacturers were granted 
new rights to configure systems with access to various Windows 
features. Microsoft must 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 company made many more compromises in this agreement. I 
don't see a need for any future federal litigation against Microsoft 
beyond this agreement.
    Sincerely,
    Linda Starnes
    33648 7th Place Southwest
    Federal Way, WA 98023



MTC-00029434

From: Michael Vengrow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 12:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir,
    I would like to respectfully submit my comments on the Microsoft 
Settlement. I believe that the key issue in this case is whether or 
not it is possible for a company to infringe on the rights of 
others, e.g., customers, competitors, distributors, etc, simply by 
offering products or services for sale under certain conditions. 
Microsoft's competitors have alleged that Microsoft has constrained 
freedom of trade in the software industry by using 
``unfair'' practices, such as obligating distributors of 
Microsoft programs to include certain features with Windows or to 
agree to certain licensing arrangements with Microsoft. I submit 
that offering products under such conditions do not constitute a 
breach of anyone's rights, neither distributors nor customers, since 
no one has been forced to deal with Microsoft. The only way to 
actually infringe on someone's rights are to initiate physical force 
against them or to commit an act of fraud against them. The fact 
that Microsoft has outcompeted its competitors, without a single 
alleged instance of force or fraud, and that its competitors are now 
crying ``Not fair!!!
    Not fair!! Not fair!!!'', is no reason for the government 
to attack Microsoft with a lawsuit. Please keep in mind that the 
only way Microsoft has been successful during its entire history is 
to offer either better products or better services or lower prices. 
No one has been coerced or defrauded by Microsoft. Ever. On the 
contrary, the public (myself emphatically included) has enormously 
benefitted from the tremendous increase in efficiency of daily 
tasks, in both business and personal life, which Microsoft's 
products have made possible. Given these facts, I urge the court to 
not punish Microsoft for doing what the best of America's 
entrepeneur's have always done--;bring to market products and 
services that improve people's lives.
    Thank you for your attention.
    Michael Vengrow
    San Diego, CA



MTC-00029435

From: Timothy L Smith
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 11:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Timothy L Smith
1855 Travis Rd.
West Palm Beach, FL 33406-;5260
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 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,
    Timothy L. Smith



MTC-00029436

From: Bryan Hoskins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    I respectfully submit my opinion on the agreement, the terms of 
which I believe to be in the best public interest.
    While the provisions of the agreement are stringent, I believe 
the terms-which have met, or gone beyond the findings of the Court 
of Appeals ruling-are reasonable and fair to all parties involved. 
This settlement represents the best opportunity for the industry to 
move forward. Both our nation's government and our nation's business 
have more important matters at hand.
    Sincerely,
    William B. Hoskins
    Sugar Land, TX



MTC-00029437

From: Ken Wronkiewicz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 12:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not support the proposed settlement with Microsoft. It is 
too loose on Microsoft

[[Page 28646]]

and will not ensure a free market. In order to remedy Microsoft's 
behaviour, it is necessary to change the way that Microsoft does 
business. In the statements of fact, it is shown that Microsoft has 
knowingly broken the law repetedly. Stronger measures are necessary.
    I support Dan Kegel's open letter, as he is far more elequent 
than I.
    Ken``Wirehead''Wronkiewicz--;[email protected]
    http://www.wirewd.com/wh/



MTC-00029438

From: Phil Collins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 12:00am
Subject: Settlement--;Energy
    A commentator on the comuter technoloyg scene, Dave Coursey of 
http://www.zdnet.com/anchordesk, suggested that in the Microsoft 
settlement that has been proposed Microsoft should pay a mult-
billion dollar fine as part of the settlement.
    The condition for approval of the settlement is that it is in 
the best interests of the public of America. In the private 
antitrust case before Judge Motz in Baltimore the proposed 
settlement would have resulted in an estimated $1 billion for poor 
schools--;which was totally unrelated to the alleged wrongs 
complained against Microsoft, but was presented as in the public 
interest.
    The most pressing need facing America is this cnetury is 
sustainable energy to replace the oil supplies of America and the 
world, which are dwindling, and could be substantially depleted if 
other sources are not used intead. America needs oil for self-
defense--;planes, tanks and ships travel on fuels derived from 
oil. As we know too well after the September 11, 2001, attacks, the 
need of continuing self-defense of America is great. World oil 
resources are much greater than America's oil, (and I include gas 
always when I say oil) resourcs.
    IF Microsoft is made to pay billions, as Dave Coursey of ZDnet's 
Anchor Desk suggests, the billions should go to research in 
sustainable energy, particularly, that using the principles 
discovery by Einstein, adn for which he was awarded teh Nobel Prize, 
including solar cells using the photo-electric effects, fusion 
energy, and improvements in fission energy. This will be in the best 
interest of America.



MTC-00029439

From: Darrell Clemons
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 11:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Darrell Clemons
929 cr 4804
Copperas Cove , Tx 76522
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 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,
    Darrell R Clemons



MTC-00029440

From: Marc McEachern
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 11:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Marc McEachern
7707 Terry Drive
La Vista, NE 68128
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 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,
    Marc McEachern



MTC-00029441

From: Richard Barton
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 11:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Richard Barton
515 Pine St.
Brookings, OR 97415
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 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,
    Richard L Barton



MTC-00029442

From: Edward Watson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 11:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Edward Watson
7752 E. Camelback Road
Scottsdale, AZ 85251-;2228
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 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.

[[Page 28647]]

    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,
    Edward A. Watson



MTC-00029443

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 12:04am
Subject: Netscape sues Microsoft
    Netscape sues Microsoft
    Netscape a company backed by AOL time Warner sews Microsoft on 
account of illegal bundling. AOL is more interested in dominating 
the communications industry than in Microsoft pay money. If we take 
a close look at what AOL already owns like HBO, Time, Warner 
Brothers, New line cinema we notice that they do not dominate in 
communications, and that all P.C. already come with Microsoft , so 
really there is no point in using AOL when you already have 
Microsoft. They plan to sue Microsoft so that bundling will stop and 
sometime in the future they will have a chance in the software 
field.
    This case is really about AOL securing it???s place in the 
future. Truth be told no one needs AOL or Netscape. Microsoft is 
just trying to make Internet use more accessible.
    Carnegy and his ability to make steel faster and more accessible 
to railroads did the same thing that Microsoft has done with the 
Internet. Rockefeller once said that , ???Much that one man cannot 
do alone two can do together.??? Windows and Microsoft have done 
together what one man alone cannot do.
    Bundling may be found illegal but Microsoft intentions are just 
in wanting to make the Internet more accessible to the public.



MTC-00029444

From: paddona
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 12:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I'm urging you to accept the settlement.
    Thank you
    Peter Addona Jr.



MTC-00029445

From: Virginia Gibson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 11:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Virginia Gibson
3221 Queensgate Way
Mt. Pleasant, SC 29466
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,
    Virginia P. Gibson



MTC-00029446

From: Allen Kay
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 12:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Just want to let you know that I strongly support the Microsoft 
& DOJ settlement agreement. Continuing this court ordeal is bad 
for the economy and bad for the continuation of technological 
revolution.
    Furthermore, it is important for US companies to maintain the 
competitive edge we currently enjoy. US government's resources, made 
possible by the tax payers, should not be used to punish successful 
US technology companies. It should instead be used to protect its 
citizens from likes of Enron debacle. Thanks for taking time reading 
my input.



MTC-00029448

From: Joyce Korn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 12:11am
Subject: Re: Microsoft Settlement
Attention: Renata B./ Hesse, Antitrust Division
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    Having reviewed the Microsoft settlement, I feel that it is just 
and reasonable and should be acceptable to the District Court as 
stated in the appeal.
    Sincerely,
    Joyce D.Korn
    ([email protected])
    CC:[email protected]@
inetgw



MTC-00029449

From: Jerry Dowdy
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/29/02 12:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jerry Dowdy
204 Rolling Hills Blvd
Florence, MS 39073
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,
    Jerry Dowdy



MTC-00029450

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 12:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    O.K. Justice, I believe this Microsoft vendetta has dragged on 
long enough. Millions of TAXPAYER dollars have been wasted in this 
Clinton era, baseless and ludicrous action. It is time to uphold the 
Microsoft settlement and return to some semblance of sanity.
    Jim Kenfield
    Elizabeth, CO.



MTC-00029451

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 12:10am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I have been following the microsoft trials. It surprise me that 
the justice department gave up without any worthwhile penalties for 
Microsoft. They should be the lst ones to give up especially after 
Mircosoft was found guilty of illegat conduct.
    I thought after finding Mircosoft quilty that the release of 
Windows XP should have been stopped. It contains even more bundling 
of products. Microsoft can afford to put more ``Free'' 
products out as long as it elimates the competition!
    Why should a software developer want to spent the time and 
energy on a product when Mircosot forces the computer manufactuer to 
use only their programs. Even if a better product was produced it 
would never see the light of day, as Microsoft has been given a big 
head start by their strong arm tatics.

[[Page 28648]]

    Some people think that getting the bundle programs free is a 
good thing. This is good only for Microsoft because they just add it 
to the price of the basic operating system.
    Gerald W Bryant
    Campbell,Ca.



MTC-00029452

From: Mark Stewart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 12:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
3043 Pawlings Ford Road
Lansdale, PA 19446
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am a computer technology manager and obviously, quite familiar 
with the recent settlement between Microsoft and the Department of 
Justice. I am writing to ask that you give your approval to this 
agreement and allow us to move on. This agreement was reached after 
very arduous negotiations, resulting in what I believe to be a fair 
and equitable agreement. I firmly believe that the original lawsuit 
is what precipitated the downfall of the economy, and further 
litigation will only continue to hamper our economic recovery.
    Because I am in the industry, I believe the supposed monopoly of 
the market by Microsoft will disappear. Microsoft's dominance of the 
market was with the desktop; but with the appearance of the 
Internet, Microsoft will have to struggle to maintain its dominance 
of the market. Further litigation will only hamper any possible 
innovation by Microsoft, which will not only be Microsoft's loss, 
but ours as well. Bill Gates, through Microsoft, has taken us much 
further than we would have gone without him. We are depriving 
ourselves of a very talented, creative force merely to satisfy the 
whining of rivals who cannot compete. The market place is its own 
regulator, particularly in technology as it moves so quickly.
    Microsoft has satisfied many of the Department of Justice's 
demands. Microsoft has agreed to open up to third party developers 
more of its copyrighted code, to aid in the development of third 
party programs; Microsoft has agreed to internal interface 
disclosure; Microsoft has agreed to a uniform price list; Microsoft 
has agreed to a technical committee to oversee future adherence. 
This is more than fair.
    I urge you to give your approval to this agreement and not give 
in to the pettiness that is so apparent.
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum
    Sincerely,
    Mark Stewart



MTC-00029453

From: CJ Neil Kvasnak
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 12:11am
Subject: Microsoft
    I trust that you will support this settlement with Microsoft. I 
am pleased this settlement was reached. Please settle this conflict 
now. It is not fair to punish Microsoft for it's success
    Sincerely,
    C.J. Kvasnak,
    4802 Otter Creek Lane,
    Ponte Vedra Beach, Fl. 32082 .



MTC-00029454

From: [email protected];inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 12:11am
Subject: United States Department of Justice antitrust lawsuit 
against Microsoft Corporat
    I support Iowa's Attorney General Tom Miller's work on the 
Microsoft antitrust case. Along with the majority of voters in our 
state, I have and will continue to retain his counsel in acting to 
protect the best interests of consumers of Iowa. Promoting a 
competitive environment among companies producing software will be 
of long-term benefit to everyone, and rejecting a settlement 
agreement that is premature is the right thing to do. Justice will 
not be the result of a hasty decision in this incredibly complex and 
high-stakes arena. If the proposed agreement is fair and is in fact 
in the best solution to the dangers posed by a potentially unfair 
competition situation, it will stand the test of time and the 
detailed analysis of Mr. Miller and his associates...which should 
not be curtailed until their case has been fully developed and 
considered.
    David Huston,
    1512 48th Street,
    Des Moines, IA 50311
    CC:tormistcommat;ag.ia.us@inetgw



MTC-00029455

From: Dave and Betty Dunham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 12:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
David & Betty Dunham
2077 Dague Rd
Walla Walla, Wa. 99362
509-;525-;4076
    Dear Mr Ashcroft,
    It is with deep respect for you, the present administration, and 
the fairness of our great country that we write this letter asking 
you to accept the Microsoft Settlement. We have watched this entire 
process with great interest and believe strongly that this suit 
should never have been brought to court.
    As small business people we hold dearly our right to keep and 
maintain personal intellectual innovations and to market those 
aggressively. Microsoft is a great success story and a testimony to 
the true spirit of America. Microsoft has done more for the small 
business owner than any other company in this century, by enabling 
our employees to work on computers which are affordable and user 
friendly!!! Instead of suing Microsoft and punishing success, our 
country ought to be heralding it's success and challenging other 
companies to strive forward. Through competition such as this comes 
excellence.
    MICROSOFT HAS GIVEN UP MUCH AND WE URGE YOU TO ACCEPT THIS 
SETTLEMENT.
    Thank you for your time and the opportunity to voice our 
opinion.
    Sincerely,
    Betty Dunham
    David Dunham



MTC-00029456

From: Alan Edmonson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 12:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please do not let Microsoft continue to run roughshod over 
competitors and the general public. Make them comply with the anti-
trust regulations.



MTC-00029457

From: Charles Boyd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 12:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement



MTC-00029458

From: dajawhit
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 12:15am
Subject: Letter



MTC-00029459

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 12:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Divison
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    It is my opinion that the terms of the Microsoft settlement are 
fair and just. I very much want to see our Justice System settle 
this case and let our economy get moving again. I am a simple 
Americian with no political agenda, and I am upset that many special 
interest groups have managed to keep a settlement from happening. 
Let's get our Country back on track and help President Bush with 
this as part of his stimulus package.
    Sincerely,
    James C. Kline
    Small Business Owner



MTC-00029460

From: Caroline Goodall
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/29/02 12:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Caroline Goodall
8112 Bonnafair Dr.
Hermitage, Tn 37076-;1033
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.

[[Page 28649]]

    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,
    C.I.Goodall



MTC-00029461

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 12:18am
Subject: Law suit
    It is time to bring this ridiculous suit to an end and quit 
making all the attorneys richer.
    Lorvey H. Schwinck



MTC-00029462

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 12:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please see attachment. As you see I had it addressed 
incorrectly.
    Thanks
    Richard Carlson
    Yes, I am a small stockholder of Microsoft as well as other tech 
stocks but I feel compelled to comment on the Microsoft Settlement. 
Shame Shame on the Vultures, The 
go-bsoemment as well as nine states have 
already agreed to a settlement. But that is not enough, the 
remaining states and other companies are now 
di-bsAng in to strip remaining bits of 
flesh from a down-beaten company as well as 
pre-bsenting them from competing fairly 
under a working capitalistic system (Economics 101). The company 
that builds the best product should win. The employees and 
management of Microsoft worked their buts off to be number 1. They 
did such a good job that e-bsen other 
companies and their employees use Microsoft products. The other 
companies should ``get a life,'' get dd of their high 
priced ``ambulance chasing'' lawyers and use that money 
and their own skills to make competing products. Its like forcing 
J.C. Pennys to remo-bsoe their buttons 
from all their shirts and gi-bsAng Sears 
and others the opportunity to offer their buttons or even zippers 
perhaps. This would then gi-bsoe other 
companies an opportunity to compete ``equally'' with 
Pennys . This so called fairness issue is ridiculous. Lets continue 
with good healthy competition the old fashioned way.
    Thank you -bscry much for allowing me 
to address this issue.
    Richard L. Cadson
    21026 6th A-bse
    So Seattle, WA 98198
    Monday,January28,2002
    AmericaOnfine:RichardLCa Page: I



MTC-00029463

From: Lydia Godinez
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/29/02 12:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lydia Godinez
3833 Peachtree Rd
Atlanta, GA 30319
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,
    Lydia Godinez



MTC-00029464

From: Gregory Lambert
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/29/02 12:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gregory Lambert
3049 E. Enos Ave.
Springfield, IL 62702
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,
    Gregory L. Lambert



MTC-00029465

From: Helen Gamsey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 12:23am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I hope you accept my response, slightly late, I couldn't get my 
email to work and had to transfer it to my laptop to send it.
Helen B. Gamsey
6006 S River Road
Norfolk, VA 23505-;4711
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you today to voice my opinion in regards to the 
Microsoft settlement issue. I feel that this debate has gone on long 
enough and that it is time to end this litigation. After three years 
of litigation, it is time to focus on more pressing issues. The 
nation is under attack and may soon be involved in a major war. In 
my opinion, this lawsuit should never have occurred in the first 
place. It was orchestrated by Microsoft's competitors like Sun 
Microsystems, Oracle, AOL, IBM, and others. I have not been a 
shareholder for almost a year but I am still very concerned about 
what I feel is gross miscarriage of justice in this case.
    Microsoft should be rewarded for all the technological and 
economic advances their products allowed in the last decade. Instead 
their persecution, instigated by their competitors persists. I hoped 
the Appeals Court Judges would vacate Judge Jackson's findings. The 
Oral arguments certainly indicated this might happen, considering 
their horror upon discovering Judge Jackson's judicial misconduct, 
and the way they mocked the government's case. Even though their 
final decision admitted that ``All indications are that the 
District Judge violated each of these ethical precepts. The 
violations were deliberate, repeated, egregious, and 
flagrant.'' Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code requires judges 
to recuse them-selves when their ``impartiality might 
reasonably be questioned.'' The Appeals Court basically did 
nothing to remedy Jackson's inexcusable conduct beyond giving him a 
verbal tongue lashing, and they failed

[[Page 28650]]

to have Jackson recused retroactively from the first time there was 
evidence of judicial misconduct.
    Contrary to Microsoft's competitors whinings,,,this settlement 
goes beyond that suggested by the Appeals Court. The AC court threw 
out all of Jackson's remedies which would have broken up the 
company. They rejected the remedies not only because Jackson erred 
by not allowing an evidentiary hearing on remedies; but because 
those remedies no longer applied to the violations they found; which 
were much less severe than those found by Jackson. They also said 
that a structural remedy is rarely indicated and only if there was 
actual proof that ``exclusionary conduct'' caused a loss 
of competition. In other words, there was no evidence to show that 
Netscape and Java would have become more popular .if not for big bad 
Microsoft..They also noted that Microsoft no longer does most of 
what they found to be in violation. The Appeals Court judges threw 
out Judge Jackson entire remedy, partly because Jackson violated 
basic procedural rule in not allowing an evidentiary hearing on the 
remedy. In their words; ``It is a cardinal principle of our 
system of justice that factual disputes must be heard in open court 
and resolved through trial-like evidentiary proceedings. Any other 
course would be contrary ``to the spirit which imbues our 
judicial tribunals prohibiting decision without hearing.''
    Yet the Appeals Court ignored their own advice, and failed to 
hold an evidentiary hearing to determine when these ``egregious 
ethical violations'' occurred. This allowed them to arbitrarily 
select a date, which conveniently was after Jackson issued his 
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, even though evidence was 
presented that revealed the violations occurred before the Findings 
of Fact were issued.. The entire decision should at least have been 
vacated and the case remanded to a different judge or the case 
should have been thrown out in toto.
    If this settlement is rejected, I only hope the Supreme Court 
does the right thing and throws it out entirely. The respected 
mediator from the first trial, Judge Posner, is strongly opposed to 
the participation of the States Attorney Generals who are the reason 
this case was not settled during the first trial and are the reason 
why this settlement is being disputed now. Posner has recommended 
that future antitrust cases brought by the Federal government not 
allow the States Attorney Generals to participate. Unfortunately, he 
acknowledged that any change to the laws would occur too late to 
help this case be resolved.
    Further, Posner acknowledges ``A complication is that it is 
difficult to find truly neutral competent experts to advise the 
lawyers judges and enforcement agencies on technical questions in 
the new economy. There aren't that many competent experts, and 
almost all of them are employed by or have financial pies to firms 
involved in or potentially affected by antitrust litigation in this 
sector. It is difficult to find a consultant in the new economy who 
is both competent and disinterested, or ``find neutral experts 
they could help the judge administer a consent decree.''
    ``The new economy presents unusually difficult questions of 
fact, such as where a plaintiff complains that the defendant has 
changed the interface to make it more difficult for the plaintiffs 
product to work with the network, or a defendant contends that it 
disclosing a protocol would allow its competitors by reverse 
engineering to copy its trade secret, that cannot be protected by 
copyright or patent law. Both questions are very technical and 
difficult.'' ``Antitrust in the New Economy. Antitrust Law 
Journal, 2001, 68, 920-;940
    There were no impartial neutral experts to help Judge Jackson, 
nor to advise the appeals Court Judges. Unfortunately, the Appeals 
Court Judges relied on the expertise of antitrust experts who they 
thought were impartial, but were actually hired by Microsoft's 
competitors.. Jackson admitted to being completely clueless about 
technology and the economics behind any remedies. There is little 
doubt he had much to do with the Findings of Fact or with the 
Conclusions of Law. Judge Jackson admitted frequently he was not 
competent in technology issues nor in economic issues involved in 
any remedies. In other words, Jackson was ``technologically and 
economically, challenged. He admitted that his secretaries would 
explain certain issues to him. Jackson just rubber stamped the 
remedy submitted by the Government, who consulted heavily with 
Microsoft's competitors. The government in turn accepted what 
Microsoft's competitors gave them., they in turn got ProComp and 
SIIAA and CIIAA to do their work..
    Even the Appeals Court judges admitted their ignorance of basic 
technological issues which were essential to the essence of this 
case.. ``THE COURT: I mean I have to say that I have only done 
downloading of these things with the help of much more skilled 
people. So I took seriously the proposition that that was a big 
barrier. But 60 million people just downloaded it? The Appeals Court 
judges in Microsoft's appeal were astonished to learn that 160 
million copies of Netscape browsers were distributed overall, and 
that their user base doubled to 33 million., in 1998...when 
Microsoft's competitors were accusing Microsoft of foreclosing 
competion.
    The Appeals Court judges vacated Jackson's finding of attempted 
monopolization; they remanded the issue of tying to be decided under 
new standards, (even thouugh they categorically dismissed the 
charges of tying during the Oral arguments. (They indicated they 
were told (by Microsoft's competitors, no doubt) that they used the 
wrong standards. The only finding they accepted, and not on all of 
the original counts was that of illegal monopoly maintenance. 
Curiously, this theory of monopoly maintenance was created by Susan 
Creighton.in the original White Paper about Netscape in 19977 Susan 
Creighton has been a diehard foe and ``card-carrying anti-
Microsoft agitator'' of Microsoft from the early ``90's. 
More curiously, Susan Creighton is now the deputy director for the 
FTC. I hope she has recused herself from any involvement in this 
case.
    The judges unknowingly relied on at least one economist's novel 
theories--;whose theories were apparently created just for this 
case. Dennis Carlton was an original participant in Project Sherman. 
``The Truth, The Whole Truth, and Nothing But The Truth'' 
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.11/microsoft.html Mike Morris 
was counsel for Sun Microsystems.. ``Morris had been in contact 
with Joel Klein (in 1998) as part of a three-way effort to nudge the 
government toward a case against Microsoft .... for the past nine 
months.'' Wired 11/2000 Page 280. The other two parties were 
Netscape's Roberta Katz and Sabre's counsel, Andy Steinberg. 
Together they had founded ProComp. ``Now Morris was plotting a 
solo mission: to put together a sort of private blue-ribbon 
commission of nationally renowned antitrust lawyers and economists, 
have them draw up an outline of the kind of Sherman Act case that 
would make sense for the DOJ to file, including a discussion of 
possible remedies, and then present the whole thing to Klein and his 
people. ``According to the article, Joel Klein thought this 
would be useful. From Wired 11/2000 Page 280.
    ``The political sensitivity of Project Sherman was, 
needless to say, extremely high, for here was one of Microsoft's 
most ardent competitors bankrolling a costly endeavor to influence 
the DOJ--;an endeavor undertaken with the department's 
encouragement.'' ``So began a project that would span 
three months and consume $3 million of Sun's money: Project 
Sherman.'' ``Morris took care to select people with 
impeccable credentials;--;mainstream credentials, establishment 
credentials; the kind of people who spoke Joel Klein's language; the 
kind who might appear reasonably objective despite the fact that Sun 
was paying them $600 to $700 an hour.'' (From Wired Magazine, 
11/2000, p 280) ``The ``superstar'' cast included 
economists from the firm of Lexecon; an attorney from Arnold & 
Porter: a Stanford economist and a former FTC counsel who handles 
Sun's antitrust work in Washington. ``Members of Project 
Sherman met every two weeks for three months and then Morris got 
Gary Reback to assemble industry figures for a hush hush meeting, 
not knowing they had been paid by Sun. (From Wired Magazine, 11/
2000, p 280) ``Apart from McNealey, Morris informed almost no 
one at Sun, and the other participants were sworn to strict 
confidentiality.'' (page 280, Wired November 2000).
    According to Heilemann, Reback and Creighton lobbied the FTC, 
the Senate Judiciary Committee, the European Commission, other 
Attorney Generals and anyone who would listen. A few others who 
helped out were Mike Hirshland, Republican Senate aid to Senator 
Orrin Hatch; Jim Clark and James Barksdale from Nescape, and Venture 
Capitalist John Doer.
    ``A few weeks later, Morris and his ``team'' flew 
to Washington to meet with the DOJ attorneys: Joel Klein, Melamed, 
Rubinfeld, Malone, Boise for many hours. ``Morris's team 
``proceeded to outline the case they believed the DOJ should 
file.'' The charges were straight from the Netscape White Paper 
written by Susan Creighton ``illegal monopoly maintenance and 
monopoly extension; a violation of Section 2 of the Sherman 
Act'' They addressed the question

[[Page 28651]]

of so called ``harm to consumers;'' the so called 
``damage to innovation'' and ``then the talk turned 
to remedies'' and a range of conduct remedies'' was 
presented as well as the ``case for a structural remedy'' 
(From Pages 282-;283 of Wired Magazine, November 2000)
    ``In 1975 Microsoft had 3 employees and revenues of 
$16,000. Over the next 25 years they grew to 36,000 employees and 
revenues of $20 billion by obsessively figuring out what computer 
users needed and delivering it to them.'' ``Over the years 
Gates and his colleagues made a lot of people mad, especially their 
competitors. Some of those competitors delivered a 222-page white 
paper in 1996 to Joel Klein, head of the Justice Department's 
antitrust division, and urged him to do to Microsoft in court what 
they couldn't do in the marketplace. (Susan Creighton wrote that 
White Paper). Another peculiarity of this case is the presence of 
U.C. Berkeley Haas Business School Professor Michael L. Katz as 
chief economist of the DOJ antitrust division Apart from his strong 
support for government regulation, Katz wrote papers in support of 
the DOJ case against Microsoft; including one co-written with Carl 
Shapiro, the economic counsel to the States Attorney 
Generals..hmmmm.
    Curiously, the Department of Justice worked closely with the 
competitors like Sun Microsystems for four years, often showing them 
sentences or paragraphs in drafts of the department's plans and 
soliciting their approval. The politics of the case is a far cry 
from the Platonic ideal of rigorous economists devising the best 
possible antitrust rules and wise, disinterested judges carefully 
weighing the evidence.'' Microsoft's competitors have used the 
Department of Justice to try to take not just their money but their 
intellectual property as well. From ``The Theft of 
Microsoft'' by David Boaz. http://www.cato.org/dailys/
07-;27-;00.html I cannot imagine that Project Sherman was 
a legal undertaking, and wonder if the Appeals Court judges were 
aware of Joel Kleins meeting with reporter John Heileman. I wonder 
if the DOJ would have brought the case if it was publicly 
acknowledged at the time that they were listening to testimony from 
hired experts paid handsomely by Microsoft's.
    During these difficult times, it is vital to do all we can to 
boost our economy. Restricting Microsoft will not accomplish this. 
This country is at war with a world wide network of Islamic 
extremists intent on destroying us. The Department of Justice needs 
to focus on ``fixing'' the FBI and improving the security 
of our nation and protecting American citizens against more 
terrorist attacks. Has this short passage of time since September 11 
dulled memories so quickly that we are back to the old games of 
using lawyers and politicians and the Department of Justice to 
squash competitors? Are things really back to normal? I don't think 
so.until the next terrorist attack. Antitrust laws are not meant to 
protect competitors against their inability to compete in the 
marketplace due to their own incompetence. Look who is suing? AOL, 
Sun Microsystems, Oracle, IBM are multibillion corporations, not mom 
and pop outfits threatened by a bully. The antitrust laws were meant 
to protect consumers and to allow fair competition. Consumers are 
not complaining. However antitrust laws are now being used to 
protect competitors, and to make trial lawyers even richer,,,at the 
expense of consumers and the economy. How many companies have been 
forced into bankruptcy now by trial lawyers over asbestos? 20? 30? 
50? AOL, Time Warner, IBM, Sun Microsystems, Oracle, etc have 
contributed heavily to politicians for years.long before Microsoft 
was forced to play this game, as a result of their persistent 
efforts to prosecute and persecute Microsoft.
    Should the DOJ continue to ``work'' on behalf of 
Attorney Generals who are receiving large contributions and specific 
instructions from Microsoft's competitors via ProComp and other such 
organizations? After all, it was Sun Microsystems'' who paid 
antitrust experts like Dennis Carlton to ``produce'' 
antitrust charges which would appear credible to the DOJ. Reputable 
antitrust experts like Carlson produced novel antitrust theories of 
harm from incomplete exclusionary conduct. Almost all of the 
violations upheld by the Appeals Court were based on Carlton's 
``novel'' theories. Others were based on 
``novel'' theories developed by Susan Creighton, an ardent 
Microsoft foe.
    I would think that the Enron scandal would make politicians and 
regulators more wary of the dangers involved from large 
contributors. I was surprised to learn the extent of Enron's 
contributions. They gave $50,000 to Paul Krugman, from the New York 
Times, who writes about economic matters, and not too surprisingly, 
Krugman apparently wrote positive articles in the past about Enron..
    It was a complaint from Sun Microsystems that lead the European 
Union to launch an antitrust case against Microsoft by the EU. There 
is something about certain American companies that run to other 
countries to crush their competition ..if they can't get the DOJ or 
FTC to do it. It is telling that Sun Microsystems has 200 lawyers in 
their legal department, more than many large firms, even in 
Washington. I think their shareholders might prefer they spent more 
on improving their products and competing.as their stock continues 
to decline.
    Microsoft was consistently been rated one of the top 
corporations to work for and one of the most admired companies by 
Fortune until the trial lawyers and AG and MSFT's competitors 
started their hatchet jobs and made Microsoft into an 
`unsympathetic target.'' http://
www.techcentralstation.com/1051/
techwrapper.jsp?PID=1051-;250&CID= 1051 -012901A
    Microsoft's competitors lobbied politicians for years 
before Microsoft was finally forced to join their game and forced to 
pay this ``protection money.'' ``For about 20 years 
Gates and his colleagues just sat out there in ``the other 
Washington,'' creating and selling. As the company got bigger, 
Washington, DC, politicians and journalists began sneering at 
Microsoft's political innocence. A congressional aide told the 
press, ``They don't want to play the DC game, that's clear, and 
they've gotten away with it so far.
    The Problem is, in the long run they won't be able t0.'' 
Politicians told Bill Gates, ``Nice little company ya got 
there. Shame if anything happened to it.'' And Microsoft got 
the message: If you want to produce something in America, you'd 
better play the game. In 1995, after repeated assaults by the 
Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department, Microsoft broke 
down and started playing the Washington game. It hired lobbyists and 
Washington PR firms. Its executives made political contributions. 
And every other high-tech company is getting the message, too, which 
is great news for lobbyists and fundraisers.'' (but not for 
consumers or innovators or successful companies..) From ``The 
Theft of Microsoft'' by David Boaz. http://www.cato.org/dailys/
07-;27-;00.html
    ``What lesson should they draw? The antitrust laws are 
fatally flawed. When our antitrust laws are used by competitors to 
harm successful companies, when our most innovative companies are 
under assault from the federal government, when lawyers and 
politicians decide to restructure the software, credit-card and 
airline industries, it's time to repeal the antitrust laws and let 
firms compete in a free marketplace.''
    Microsoft's competitors and these phony front groups are using 
their influence over the media, and their power from contributions 
to politicians to give the appearance that they are concerned with 
consumers, when they are only advancing their own agenda, which is 
harmful to most of us. Microsoft's competitors claim to have the 
interest of consumers at heart, when in reality their own 
incompetence lead to their loss of market share. AOL 5 was such a 
terrible product that even computer experts could not deal with the 
changes it made to the computer. It changed your default settings 
and took over. Mossberg from the Wall Street Journal, who has never 
been a fan of Microsoft, acknowledged this at the time and there 
were lawsuits over this which somehow failed to make the news.. 
Anyone who has ever used AOL knows about their inferior products and 
their poor customer service. Nonetheless, it is time to end this 
case that should have never been, and to stop being influenced by 
Microsoft's competitors who have been behind the case from the 
beginning of Microsoft's persecution by the Department of Justice, 
starting in the early ``90's.
    This settlement is the perfect means to end this dispute. 
Microsoft will remain together and continue designing and marketing 
their innovative software, while fostering competition and making it 
easier for other companies to compete. Microsoft has pledged to 
share more information about Windows operating system products and 
has agreed to be monitored for compliance.
    I sincerely hope the Department of Justice accepts this 
settlement and puts an end to this mess and turns their attention to 
real threats to the Nation-the terrorists who want to destroy the 
West. Caving into Microsoft's major competitors who are behind the 
Attorney Generals hurt consumers and the economy further. Let them 
innovate like Microsoft does, rather than litigate.
    Thank you for your attention.
    Sincerely,
    Helen B. Gamsey

[[Page 28652]]

    757-;440-;5910
    Sincerely,
    Helen Gamsey



MTC-00029466

From: Ron Lansing
To: Microsoft ATR,douglas tharp,Ron & Avis
Date: 1/29/02 12:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the current settlement, as it actually rewards 
Microsoft by forcing schools to use Microsoft software and Intel 
based PCs. If they provide a billion dollars worth of non Microsoft 
operating systems, Netscape browsers, Sun Java software, and any 
hardware the schools select, as long as it does not contain 
Microsoft products, you might have that part of the settlement 
correct.
    Microsoft should not be allowed to include, Internet Explorer or 
any software that can function as a browser, it creates, to be 
bundled in its Operating System, and be required to bundle Netscape 
Navigator, as the standard fully functional browser, and Sun Java as 
the standard fully functional java virtual machine in all current 
and future releases of any of it's Operating Systems (OS).
    Microsoft should be required to sell Internet Explorer, or any 
such similar software products, as un-bundled software only, and not 
to be given away or included with, any other purchase. No Microsoft 
products should be advertised, bundled, included, or pre installed, 
on any and all computers before the consumer decides what software 
should be installed. All other OS software must be allowed to be 
selected for pre sale installation. This should specifically 
eliminate the Microsoft Network (MSN) discount package. Microsoft 
must dissolve itself of all it's Internet Services (MSN). Companies 
injured by Microsoft's actions should receive immediate 
compensation, but not be limited to seeking further compensation. 
All penalties and compensation must be put in escrow immediately. 
This would be a good start.
    Ron Lansing
    Lead Software Engineer



MTC-00029467

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 12:27am
Subject: Microsoft Public Comment
    The Government and the State Attorney Generals proved repeatedly 
that Microsoft had knowingly violated the law causing major damage 
to the health of the PC and Internet industries. Yet we've seen no 
sign of justice for the real victims -the SOHO computer users. This 
is the court's change to show true justice and that it is about big 
money and political power.
    Alan Bicho



MTC-00029468

From: John Brajkovic
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 12:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi,
    I've been orphaned by successive hardware and software platforms 
over the past decade. My comments will emphasize the time period 
1989-;1993. Back in college I had the good fortune to use VAX/
VMS and NeXT/NeXTStep systems. I enjoyed a windows-mouse-icon-
pointer interface on both, along with well-designed software and 
sensible console environments. Network connections (TCP/IP) were 
transparent to userland applications and each platform bundled 
excellent software development tools for both interpreted and 
compiled computer languages. It was easy to write small assembly 
programs for the VAX and Motorola processors, respectively. Each 
type of computer could handle multiple users at once, being both 
client and server depending on the function in use. Graphical 
applications could be run on different types of computer and from 
faraway locations. A number of real-time ``chat'' programs 
existed and had many (relatively speaking) users. Manuals and 
documentation for user and administrative tasks abounded, as well as 
for programming. Unfortunately I also had to use 
``desktop'' computers. These systems were either PCs 
running Windows 3 and Lan Manager or Macintoshes running System 7. 
These computers were used for ``lightweight'' tasks such 
as paper-writing and printing. They did not work well for their 
assigned tasks. Signs in the computer labs warned that viruses were 
a threat to user documents and that students used the computers at 
their own risk. Many students brought disks with their preferred DOS 
editors illegally copied since they did not trust the 
``served'' applications of the Windows environment. 
Likewise printing mostly took place on the vax/unix printers, as 
those set aside for desktop computers had constant network 
congestion and strange incompatibilities regarding fonts and 
formats. Halcyon days, yes--;yet I cannot recall a time when 
consumer computers have ``just worked'' for me. 
Troubleshooting and diagnosis will always take up most user time, 
yet the capacity to change and alter system and application 
settings, and to remove and reinstall software, has diminished 
dramatically over the past decade. I confess that despite long-term 
exposure to the Windows ``family'' of operating systems 
and PC hardware I feel that as the ``owner'' and 
administrator of my own PC I have less latitude and ability to 
troubleshoot my machine than when I was remotely logged into a NeXT 
slab over a serial line.
    My PC shipped with Windows 98. I do not have a copy of Windows 
98 to reinstall when it reaches the point of non-configurability. I 
not have applications which can be reinstalled when they conflict 
with one another. Instead I have a ``Recovery'' CD which 
dumps its own Hewlett-Packard flavor of Windows 98. Its HP-specific 
drivers cannot be disentangled from the core OS. I cannot cleanly 
install, remove and reinstall applications. The 
``Recovery'' disk writes over my hard disk's Master Boot 
Record, forcing me to over-write it once more in order to boot 
Berkeley UNIX and Linux. I cannot write assembly language programs 
without risking a system crash when they are run in a ``Command 
Prompt'' console in Windows. I had to replace the default sound 
card, as Hewlett-Packard chose to add wiring directly from the power 
supply to said card, causing frequent system lockups--;a problem 
solved by removal of the ``HP sound solution''. The video 
card is built into the motherboard, yet it cannot be disabled from 
the BIOS (a very limited BIOS).
    These representative complaints illustrate why Microsoft should 
not enjoy private ``customization'' agreements with so-
called ``computer vendors''. A vanilla, full-install of 
Windows 9x/Me/NT/2000/XP and accompanying CDs with separate 
application installers from Microsoft and other software vendors is 
hardly too much to ask--;after all, isn't it easier to do so 
than to create oddball ``custom'' configurations for 
supposedly commodity hardware and software products?
    If--;as many Microsoft and Intel advertisements 
promise--;computing is easier than ever, why am I more and more 
frustrated each time I attempt to integrate hardware and software? 
Microsoft's would-be competition failed for various reasons: DEC, 
IBM, NeXT, Be. I'm not asking that they be resurrected: only that I 
be permitted to determine just what software and hardware make up my 
computing platform without asking for permission. I took advantage 
of a sales deal to buy a PC from CompUSA. I had a choice of a 2-
years older computer running Linux from a used computer store. Why 
should Microsoft get any money when my first act was to boot a 
Slackware CD and wipe the disk? (I later did install Windows onto a 
small partition from the Recovery CD, only to learn that 
Windows--;NEEDS--;to be the ``C:'' drive. 15 years 
of DOS and it still can't handle being moved to slave position.) I 
have no problem buying a separate, full-install of Windows. I have 
no problem running ``Windows'' applications. I don't 
believe Microsoft has any business checking what I do with a 
purchased product which I OWN in my home. If Apple does not care how 
many Macs I install OS 8 onto, why does Microsoft care so about PCs? 
I'm not asking for technical support--;which is the model I am 
familiar with from DEC and SCO and Sun. Apologies for the rambling 
nature of this post. Thank you for reading it.
    John Brajkovic
    PS. Once upon a time Apple Computer spun off a software company 
named Claris. (Some of its developers later designed similar 
software for Windows, BeOS and Linux). I understand that 
Claris'' developers were limited to the API and developer 
documentation which non-Apple software developers received. Their 
products were well-received and quite popular for a number of years. 
I fail to see why Microsoft should not do the same.



MTC-00029469

From: Sylvia Cooper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 12:30am
Subject: Public Comment
    I don't know if Microsoft is a Monopoly; I'm not a lawyer. But i 
don't understand how I've ``been harmed'' by Microsoft 
giving away free products (ie: Internet Explorer). Would I have been 
better off paying for it? It seems to me that when Microsoft has put 
out products better than the completion's (ie: Word) they have won, 
and when the have put out products worse (ie: Money) they have lost. 
When someone goes to a job interview

[[Page 28653]]

and they know how to use Word or Excel how many thousdans of dollars 
in training and productivity have they saved an employer? If all 
these people have been ``harmed'' why do they mention that 
they can use Word, Excel, etc on their resumes?
    Lets end the case and move on.
    Andy Heidelberg
    2337 E. Gossamer Lane
    Boise, ID 83706
    208-;331-;3783
    [email protected]



MTC-00029470

From: Frank Brazil
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/29/02 12:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Frank Brazil
28 Trailside Place
Plesasnt Hill, Ca 94523-;1036
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,
    Frank G. Brazil Jr.



MTC-00029471

From: Ron Paulk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 12:35am
Subject: Get off Microsoft's Back
    Dear DOJ,
    I encourage you to accept the agreement between Microsoft and 
DOJ. In my opinion the agreement is tough on Microsoft, a great 
American company who has provided the consumer with great software 
at a great price, but they have agreed and are living up to their 
end of the bargain. Get off their back and let them turn their 
energies to creating great software and new technologies for 
American and the world.
    You should turn your energies and guns on the crooks a Enron.
    Ron Paulk
    [email protected]



MTC-00029472

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 12:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I would like to voice my opinion on the Microsoft Anti Trust 
case. It is time that this case be ended. Upholding the current 
settlement is the right thing to do. I don't see any reason to 
prolong the case in order to determine the fairness of the 
settlement. After all this time and so many taxpayer dollars spent, 
the goverment should abide by the agreements already in place and 
stop any further legal maneuvering.
    I am self-employed and use Microsoft for my business. Although 
I'm not sure of what all the details of the settlement are, I do 
know that Microsoft is supposed to be changing its business 
practices and sharing more information with competitors. Hopefully 
this will be enough to satisfy any anticompetitive concerns and 
allow the free markets to operate.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Powers



MTC-00029473

From: Stanton Jorgens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 12:36am
Subject: Micrrosoft Settlement
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    We support the Microsoft settlement with the Department of 
Justice. The time has come to bring this case to a close. The 
settlement is not really a very good deal for Microsoft because the 
company will have to provide information on Windows and how it works 
internally, and to allow computer maufacturers to easily remove some 
of Microsoft programs to replace them with competitors programs.
    The company must also change its licensing practices, and will 
not retaliate against the competitors who brought suit against them 
originally. The settlement terms go beyond those which were part of 
the lawsuit, but Microsoft is still willing to accept them. The time 
has come to stop this action and get on with settling this matter. 
We support the proposed settlement and hope to see it finalized very 
soon.
    thank you Stanton and Corrita Jorgens



MTC-00029475

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 12:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Honorable Attorney General of the United States: John 
Ashcroft
    Please accept the attached letter that supports immediate 
regarding the
Microsoft settlement.



MTC-00029475 0001

488 Brookside Drive
Eugene, OR 97405
January 26,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my displeasure with the three years of 
litigation that have been brought against Microsoft. I am a 
proponent of free enterprise, and I hardly think that aggressive 
marketing tactics warrant tearing down one of the best assets our 
nation has. Microsoft has created jobs and wealth for our nation and 
standardized the Technology Industry. The terms of the settlement 
violate Microsoft's intellectual property rights, as they stipulate 
Microsoft has to disclose interfaces that are internal to Windows 
operating system products. Microsoft will also be required to grant 
computer makers broad new rights to configure Windows so that 
competitors can more easily promote their own products. Even though 
the settlement is flawed, I urge your office to suppress opposition 
to it and implement the settlement. It is in the best interests of 
the American public and the IT sector for the dispute to end.
    Yours truly,
    Ron Faunce



MTC-00029475--;0002



MTC-00029476

From: 
[email protected]@i
netgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 12:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Honorable Judge,
    I urge you to reject the proposed settlement in the U.S. vs. 
Microsoft anti-trust suit before you. Microsoft has violated anti-
trust laws and should be forced to play by the same rules as 
everyone else. However, this proposed final judgment would fail to 
accomplish that. Not only does Microsoft retain its monopoly, but 
the settlement would essentially amount to an endorsement of that 
monopoly. And Microsoft is left to police itself! Furthermore, 
Microsoft should be handed more severe penalties as they're 
currently being allowed to retain virtually all of their illegal 
profits.
    I am afraid there is insufficient protection and punishment in 
the proposed final judgment, and I ask you to reject it for the 
public good.
    Sincerely,
    Brad Zielinski
    1288 Martin Avenue
    San Jose, CA 95126
    1-;408-;293-;4771 
[email protected]



MTC-00029477

From: Doug
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 12:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I don't think that Microsoft was hit hard enough in this 
settlement. They have hurt the developers of software that I use and 
respect. I believe that they should be split up and heavily fined. 
Thanks Doug Kahler

[[Page 28654]]



MTC-00029478

From: Zeroth mark p sullivan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 12:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Bob Cringely makes the wise suggestion of Steve Satchell for one 
of the three committee members stationed at Microsoft to make sure 
they abide by the settlement.
    Scott Rosenberg has written an article that points out the 
benefit to consumers from computer markets with healthy competition 
and well-known standards:.
    http://www.salon.com/tech/col/rose/2002/01/16/competition/
    Please also ensure that non-business entities are able to bring 
grievances against Microsoft and demand information of them. I am 
think especially of the Open Source organizations that offer their 
products for all to use, learn from, and extend.
    0 how to keep microsoft honest? . . . Zeroth mark p sullivan O
    O http://attila.stevens-tech.edu/msulliva/ To a wonderful 
universe 0
    0 [email protected] I am proud of 
my universe



MTC-00029479

From: D.Landis Murphy
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/29/02 12:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
D.Landis Murphy
147 Suburban Terrace
Stratford, NJ 08084-;1413
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,
    D.Landis Murphy



MTC-00029480

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 12:42am
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust
    Dear your Honor
    Like many others I am asking you to consider your decision and 
with the previous courtorders on monopolistic behaivoir. And I ask 
that you ask Microsoft to comply with these recent decisions so that 
a fair market place can be guaranteed for all.
    Thank you
    Sincerely
    Livia Evans
    3110 Kinsrow Av. Apt 322
    Eugene OR 97401
    (541) 684-;3882
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00029481

From: Patrick O'Connor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Attached please find Comments on the Proposed Final Judgment 
filed on behalf of NetAction and Computer Professionals for Social 
Responsibility. A copy of these comments will also be provided by 
fax.
    Please feel free to contact me at 202-;955-;6300 with 
any questions or concerns.
    Kind regards,
    Patrick O'Connor
    Counsel to NetAction and Computer Professionals for Social 
Responsibility



MTC-00029482

From: Marian Zweber
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 12:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    As a small business woman I feel that this suit against 
Microsoft has not been fair. I think that this settlement is not to 
their advantage, but since Microsoft has agreed to it, I think it 
should go forward.
    Please rule for Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
    Sincerely,
    Marian W. Garton-Zweber



MTC-00029483

From: Michael Harper
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/29/02 12:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Michael Harper
5379 Tumbleweed Dr.
Helena, MT 59602
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,
    Michael Harper



MTC-00029484

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 12:47am
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,
    Chester Schaaphok
    4457 W. Schaaphok
    Phoenix, AZ 85031



MTC-00029485

From: Robert Power
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 12:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
TO: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
United States Department of Justice
Washington, DC
    I am writing regarding the proposed Microsoft settlement to let 
you know that I, as one who uses computers everday, request that the 
settlement made between Microsoft and the Justice Department be 
designed to benefit consumers, or let the District courts complete 
their work. Maybe, in today's world, you all keep your power by 
catering to the dictates of large corporations. Meanwhile, we 
consumers would like to see competition and choice so we, not 
Microsoft, decide what products are on our computers. The settlement 
must provide ways for any

[[Page 28655]]

combination of non-Microsoft operating systems, applications, and 
software components to run properly with Microsoft products and give 
access to software developers of all tools and information they need 
to enable Microsoft products to run with non-Microsoft products, 
even across platforms.
    The proposed settlement is not in the public interest. The 
settlement leaves the Microsoft monopoly intact. It is vague and 
unenforceable. It leaves Microsoft with numerous opportunities to 
exempt itself from crucial provisions. Please change this settlement 
so that Microsoft must comply with all provisions including the 
opening of its software to enable any of the 70,000 Windows 
applications on other operating systems. Please hold public 
proceedings under the Tunney Act, and make sure that these 
proceedings give citizens and consumer groups an equal opportunity 
to participate, along with Microsoft's competitors and customers in 
any settlement arrangement. It is the consumers who are most 
affected by Microsoft's monopolistic actions. It is time that this 
change and consumers have their voice. Anti-trust actions have been 
taken. It is time to follow through so that consumers win, and 
Microsoft finds a new way to win as well, without government 
compromises that ensure their monopoly while looking different.
    Thank You
    Robert Power
    1705 14th Street, #132
    Boulder, CO 80302
    [email protected]
    Robert Power
    [email protected]



MTC-00029486

From: Mark Baenziger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 12:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I would like to express my frustration with the Proposed Final 
Judgement (i.e., the Microsoft Settlement). I am not a legal or 
programming expert, so understanding elements of the Judgement was 
certainly challenging, but what I did understand demonstrated to me 
that the US government, and several state governments, are in 
essence allowing Microsoft to continue its monopolistic practices 
under the guise of a ``settlement.''
    I disagree with the Proposed Final Judgement as it stands.
    Thanks,
    Mark Baenziger



MTC-00029487

From: George Brown
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/29/02 12:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
George Brown
1418 Grand Ave
Ames, IA 50010-;5266
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,
    George Brown



MTC-00029488

From: Jean E. Rivers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 12:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
2108 S.. Terrace Way
Yuma AZ 85364
January 28, 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    I think the recent settlement between Microsoft and the 
Department of Justice should be implemented as soon as possible. 
Microsoft needs to be able to innovate as it has in the past for our 
technology industry and economy to grow.
    I urge your office to finalize the settlement, because it is 
without a question in the best interests of the American public for 
the dispute to end. Thank you for your consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Jean Rivers



MTC-00029490

From: Elton Garvin
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/29/02 12:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Elton Garvin
8183 Oswego Rd
Baldwinsville, NY 13027
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,
    Elton C. Garvin



MTC-00029491

From: cs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 12:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Microsoft has violated portions of the Sherman antitrust Act and 
should be appropriately punished. Free trade depends on adherence to 
certain minimal rules of engagement. Microsoft did not conduct its 
business legally in the browser market, i.e. Netscape.
    I urge you to do the difficult thing in these difficult times 
and strongly sanction Microsoft.
    Chad Smiddy
    BA Biology



MTC-00029492

From: 
[email protected]@inetg
w
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 12:53am
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 28656]]

    Sincerely,
    shaun oliver
    3319 Lubbock Drive
    Hope Mills, NC 28348-;9650



MTC-00029493

From: Steve Vandergrift
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/29/02 12:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Steve Vandergrift
11054 Wurdermann's Way
Orlando, FL 32825
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,
    Steve Vandergrift



MTC-00029494

From: (091)S. Andra Keller(093)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 1:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    E-mail comments to [email protected]. 
Please type ``Microsoft Settlement'' in the subject line.
    Your Honor,
    My name is Sherrie Andra Johansson Keller. I just found out 
about this option to comment this evening. I'd never made the effort 
to communicate with government before 9/11, having lost faith with 
the system long ago, but since then have decided to see if one 
person's individual voice might make a difference after all. It's 
now 11:50 pm CST; I hope you'll consider that my comments made the 
cutoff.
    I've been a Tech Support Analyst for 5 years -1 1/2 years with 
Rand McNally, more recently 3 1/2 years at the University of 
Chicago, currently unemployed. I have followed the Microsoft trials 
for the duration. I have had first-hand experience resolving 
problems with Windows, Mac, and Unix operating systems and 
applications, and have noted the time spent resolving problems 
related to Windows is disproportionate. Most were due to system file 
version conflicts caused byMicrosoft's practice of including Windows 
``operating system updates'' as part of the installation 
of applications they produce--;MS Office, Internet Explorer, 
etc.
    I feel Dan Kegel's letter at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
letter.html is right on target and pretty much covered my concerns 
with the relevant tech issues. (I'd cosign but he's already sent his 
comments to you. Oh, well.)
    My other concern is the role of powerful corporations and 
government. The recent Enron bankruptcy further fuels my concerns. 
I'm running short of time so can't state my concerns personally. 
Instead I've included links to an article that addresses some of 
them.
    Microsoft and Kool-Aid test
    By Robert Lemos ZDNet News August 22, 2001, 5:00 PM PT
    http://zdnet.com.com/2100-;1107-;530559.html
    MORE NEWS: Why Ballmer's ``monkey boy'' dance was a 
tour de force
    By Charles Cooper, Senior Executive News Editor, ZDNet News, 
posted Friday, August 24, 2001
    http://www.zdnet.com/anchordesk/stories/story/
0,10738,2807333,00.html ``...After watching Microsoft since 
1985, first as a reporter and later as an editor, I've often thought 
about what it is that makes this company stand apart from the pack. 
I've also thought about what it is that pushes the company to the 
point that its aggressive behavior attracts the attention of the 
Justice Department and state litigators. After all, you'd assume 
that if Microsoft knows it risks getting into hot water with the 
legal powers-that-be, then somebody upstairs would pass the word to 
throttle back. BUT THE GENIUS OF MICROSOFT is that it doesn't 
throttle back, that its leadership is so driven by a flat-out, win-
all-the-marbles mentality, that this is not just software. It's 
about a lot more than that. For Ballmer and his boss, Bill Gates, 
it's surely about more than the money. Hell, after you pass the $1 
billion point in net worth--;something both execs did years 
ago--;how many more cars do you want to collect? How much better 
can you eat? How many other houses do you want to buy? This is about 
securing their place in history. In the same way that biographers 
and economic historians have devoted their attentions to John D. 
Rockefeller and the amazing oil trust he built by the turn of the 
last century, future scholars will do the same when they examine 
this part of the history of the computer industry and the role 
played by Microsoft..... ....But like Microsoft or not, the unsated 
appetite of this company is a testament to the ability and drive of 
the folks running the show. In business, like in war, half-measures 
don't make it. And when you go into battle, it helps if the true 
believers are in command.''
    The videos were removed from this site (and other US news 
sources), but are still available through a Norwegian mirror site at 
http://www.stenstad.net/storage/ballmer--;dance.mpg http://
www.stenstad.net/storage/developers.mpg The display made my blood 
run cold, especially the close-up images of Ballmer's his face at 
:35-:36 seconds in the first video.
    These comments in the Talkback section indicate I'm not the only 
one who felt this way:
    Name: Steve Hawkins
    Posted At: 12:12 GMT 08/24/2001
    Face it.... Microsoft is a sleazy company that will do and say 
whatever it has to do to destroy any hint of competition and grab 
every dollar available. THAT is their mission. Just a personal 
opinion of course. Say all you want about Ballmer or Gates and their 
level of passion. Say all you want about wanting to leave their mark 
on history. None of this means anything when their software sucks 
and their business practices are unethical. It's nice that the 
Microsoft faithful (Baaaa!) get themselves into a lather. I'm happy 
for them. I do think they need to get a life though. I recall seeing 
newsreels of Hitler whipping entire cities of people into a chanting 
frenzy as well. Ah Hitler, he sure was passionate.
    Rob Charlton
    Posted At: 00:11 GMT 08/30/2001
    Charles, You wrote ``In business, like in war, half-
measures don't make it. And when you go into battle, it helps if the 
true believers are in command.'' Really ?? The ``true 
believers'' ran Germany in the 1930s, did they not ? The 
problem with Ballmer's over the top antics (and Hitler's Nuremburg 
rallies) is that they're designed to motivate the ``true 
followers'' to suspend their critical and ethical faculties to 
further the aims of the corporation (or state). The parallel is one 
of degree, but the principle is the same. Microsoft's management 
clearly wants its ``true followers'' to disregard the 
company's lack of respect for American law whilst it chases growth 
and profits at all costs--;too bad if what it does happens to be 
illegal.
    Thanks for letting one person speak out. I want to believe in 
our government again.
    Sherrie Andra Keller



MTC-00029495

From: Harlan Friesen
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/29/02 12:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Harlan Friesen
6411 Oakcreek Way
Citrus Heights, Cal., Ca 95621
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

[[Page 28657]]

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,
    Harlan Friesen



MTC-00029496

From: Eric Holliday
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 1:04am
Subject: Interoperability
    To whom it concerns,
    I am an Apple Computer user. Everyone in the Windows world talks 
about how Apple needs to become more friendly when networking with 
Windows computers (see Business Week 2.0 article at http://
www.business2.com/articles/web/0,1653,37236,FF.html ) as well as 
other interoperability issues. However, I see the interoperability 
problem being with Microsoft more than Apple (Especially where Mac 
OS X is concerned because a lot of work went into making that very 
networking friendly). Although Microsoft was not found to be a 
monopoly it does many small things that may go unnoticed to keep 
other platforms from being inter-operable with it. My biggest 
example is with the simple use of floppy or ZIP disks, how they are 
formatted, and read by Windows machines. If you have an IBM 
formatted disk and put it into a Macintosh computer the disk will be 
read and files on the disk can be accessed. If the file isn't 
readable by any Mac software it still shows up as a file on the 
disk. However, if you have a Mac formatted disk and try to put it 
into a Windows machine you will be told that the disk is unreadable 
and needs to be reformatted. With that you are given the option to 
eject or initialize the disk. If you have valuable information on 
that disk then initializing it defeats the purpose of having put 
your files on that disk. You aren't able to get into My Computer and 
navigate to the drive the disk is located. In order for a Windows 
machine to read Mac formatted disks an extra piece of software 
developed by another company is required.
    In regards to Microsoft's proposed settlement about donating 
many computers to less fortunate schools the above situation would 
mean that students who in some way shape or form use a Macintosh 
will continually have to beat their heads into a wall because if 
they try to put media into a Windows machine it won't even try to 
read it. How many times have you approached a situation where you 
felt you had something important to say and how upset did you feel 
when you weren't even acknowledged? Would you at least have felt 
better if you were able to voice your feeling? Windows doesn't let 
you voice your feeling. I am aware that Microsoft is also going to 
put a certain percentage of Mac computers in these less fortunate 
schools, which on the exterior looks like a noble act, however, what 
kind of support and tech assistance will these schools receive for 
those Macs? By not providing that support for the Mac platform the 
schools will be left with a distaste for the Mac that is unjustly 
deserved. This will lead them to ask for Windows computers.
    Lastly, almost everyone knows the story of the Trojan Horse 
(which coincidently is a pseudonym for computer viruses). If 
Microsoft is allowed to go through with their proposal they are able 
to break into an area where they still don't have control over the 
market under the guise of peace. This gets them through the market 
without a fight. History may repeat itself and we are supposed to 
learn from it. Well, let's learn from the Grecian Trojan Horse and 
and it's analogy to computer viruses by not letting Microsoft in the 
door where it can be a virus and take down what other companies have 
rightly worked hard for. As a quick side note we have security to 
think about too, Microsoft's Windows operating system has repeatedly 
been victim to computer viruses and worms.
    Thanks for allowing us to at least step up to the platform and 
voice our feelings,
    Eric L. Holliday
    Oswego, NY



MTC-00029497

From: Don (038) Cookey Bickle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 1:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attn: Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    RE: Microsoft Settlement
    CC:[email protected]@
inetgw



MTC-00029499

From: delwin hoffman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 1:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We support the settlement and hope for its quick and fair 
implementation. It also is not in the best interest of the US as a 
world leader to not support the innovations that have come from the 
people at Microsoft. The have created the world of e business that 
we enjoy today.
    Sincerely
    Del Hoffman



MTC-00029500

From: Gary Byington
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/29/02 1:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gary Byington
1948 Cindy Ct
Burleson, TX 76028
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,
    Gary D Byington



MTC-00029501

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 1:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mary Marchand
3611 Forest Hill Drive
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
January 29, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft Department of Jusstice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530, USA
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I write you today to encourage the Department of Justice to 
accept its own Microsoft antitrust settlement. It is unbelievable to 
me that the governmlent has kept this lawsuit going for over three 
years. Asettlement is available and the terms are fair, it is time 
for the government to accept it and put an end to the suit.
    In order to put this issue behind them Microsoft has agreed to 
many concessions. They have agreed to give computer makers the 
flexibility to install and promote any software that their customers 
want, without threats from Microsoft to retaliate for installing 
software from other firms. Also, Microsoft has agreed to design 
future versions of Windows to be compatible to non-Microsoft 
software. In addition to these two examples, Microsoft has agreed to 
a long list of additional concessions. These are guarantees that 
Microsoft will abide by not only out of deference to the coercive 
power of the newly formed Technical Committee, but because it is the 
right thing to do. The terms are fair. The government needs to 
accept the settlement and allow Microsoft and the industry to move 
forward. Please accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement.

[[Page 28658]]

    Sincerely,
    Mary Marchand
    CC:[email protected]@
inetgw



MTC-00029502

From: p [email protected]
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/29/02 1:11 am
Subject: Microsoft mail2web--;Check your email from the web at 
http://mail2web.com/.



MTC-00029502 0001

494 14th Street
Brooklyn, NY 11215
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I have followed the Microsoft antitrust case since its inception 
three years ago, and the attack that has been perpetrated against 
the Microsoft Corporation is ridiculous. It represents a feeding 
frenzy on the part of Microsoft's competitors. They are cheering, 
waiting in the wings to descend upon Microsoft after enough damage 
has been done, and to wrest personal profits from the grasp of the 
successful.
    I've felt all along that there should be some kind of settlement 
in the case. I am dismayed that the lawsuit has hung over Microsoft 
for so long. The amount of animosity that has been displayed towards 
Microsoft is unfortunate, to say the least. Microsoft is treated 
like the enemy! This whole charade has been ludicrous. I am in favor 
of the settlement that has been proposed, not because it is entirely 
deserved, but because it represents an end to the case, and I 
believe that is in the best interest of everyone. Enough is enough.
    Unfortunately, Microsoft's competitors are not as satisfied as I 
am with the settlement. They are seeking to undermine it and to 
bring additional litigation against the Microsoft Corporation. This 
is nothing but opportunism. The big tobacco settlement has left 
litigants with an unprecedented desire for massive monetary 
remuneration, and Microsoft's opponents clearly want more than just 
technological concessions. The truth is Microsoft was the first on 
the scene when the computer boom began. Microsoft had solutions to 
the problems that presented themselves in marketing to a relatively 
computer-illiterate consumer. Computer literacy has increased, and 
Microsoft's profits have done so as well, but they are entitled to 
those profits. Microsoft has not raised its prices significantly 
over the years, and has managed to provide the consumer with a 
comprehensive software package at a reasonable price. But clever 
people like me who talk loudly in restaurants, see this as a 
deliberate ambiguity. A plea for justice in a mechanized society.
    Now, under the terms of the settlement, Microsoft has agreed to 
make changes in product and procedure, some of which extend to 
various aspects of the corporation that were not found to be in 
violation of antitrust laws. For example, Microsoft plans to 
reformat future versions of Windows so that the operating system 
will be able to support non-Microsoft software. Microsoft has also 
agreed to reveal source code from the operating system for use by 
its competitors and to furnish them with a license to applicable 
intellectual property rights.
    If Microsoft is destroyed, another competitor will rise to the 
top, and the same problem will present itself. Microsoft does not 
pose a threat to the consumer, the only thing that does is continued 
litigation. I strongly urge you and your office to support the 
settlement.
    Ecce homo ergo elk. La Fontaine knew his sister, and knew her 
bloody well.
    Sincerely,
    Paul Singer
    cc: Representative Anthony David Weiner



MTC-00029503

From: Ann G. Baird
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/29/02 1:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ann G. Baird
339 Carmon Avenue
Lovell, WY 82431
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,
    Ann G. Baird



MTC-00029504

From: Robert Anderson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/29/02 1:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Robert Anderson c/o Larson 6522 Old Colony Bnd Rockford, IL 
61108
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 M. Anderson



MTC-00029505

From: Ron Sackman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 1:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Honorable Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    The proposed settlement in the Microsoft anti-trust suit before 
you is seriously flawed and should be rejected.
    Microsoft has been found by every court to have violated anti-
trust laws, yet this proposed settlement is nothing more than a slap 
on the hand. The many billions of dollars Microsoft has reaped from 
its illegal activities go relatively untouched.
    Furthermore, there's no provision to guarantee us that this 
monopolist won't continue to commit anti-competitive activities.
    Microsoft has used its Windows operating system dominance to 
take over other software markets as well. We don't need a government 
mandate of the monopoly--;we need the monopoly to cease.
    Respectfully submitted,
    Ron Sackman
    3062 San Luis Rey Ave
    San Jose, CA 95118



MTC-00029506

From: Robert E Lehnherr
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/29/02 1:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert E Lehnherr
3631 South 257th Street
Kent, WA 98032-;5669

[[Page 28659]]

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-00029507

From: Larry Richards
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/29/02 1:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Larry Richards
732 Absaraka St.
Sheridan, WY 82801
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,
    Larry Richards



MTC-00029508

From: Menard Norton
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/29/02 1:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Menard Norton
2805 Forbes Street
Jacksonville, FL 32205-;7520
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,
    Menard Norton



MTC-00029509

From: G.Stuart Powers
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/29/02 1:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
G.Stuart Powers
398 Powers Rd.
Locke, NY 13092
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.
    Sincerly Stuart Powers



MTC-00029510

From: Janette Richards
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/29/02 1:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Janette Richards
732 Absaraka St.
Sheridan, WY 82801
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,

[[Page 28660]]

    Janette Richards



MTC-00029511

From: Bryan D. Shipp
To: Microsoft ATR, 
[email protected]@
inetgw
Date: 1/29/02 1:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
--;--;--;Original Message--;--;-
From: Microsoft's Freedom To Innovate Network
[mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 9:57 PM
To: 
``[email protected]''

Subject: Attorney General John Ashcroft Letter
    Attached is the letter we have drafted for you based on your 
comments.
    Please review it and make changes to anything that does not 
represent what you think. If you received this letter by fax, you 
can photocopy it onto your business letterhead; if the letter was 
emailed, just print it out on your letterhead. Then sign and fax it 
to the Attorney General and carbon copy it to your Member of 
Congress. We believe that it is essential to let our elected 
officials know how important this issue is to their constituents.
    When you send out the letter, please do one of the following:
    * Fax a signed copy of your letter to us at 
1-;800-;641-;2255;
    * Email us at [email protected] to 
confirm that you took action.
    If you have any questions, please give us a call at 
1-;800-;965-;4376.
    Thank you for your help in this matter. The Attorney General's 
fax and email are noted below.
    Fax: 1-;202-;307-;1454 or 
1-;202-;616-;9937
    Email: [email protected]
    In the Subject line of the e-mail, type Microsoft Settlement.
    Carbon Copy:
    Sen. Rick Santorum
    Fax: 202-;224-;1229
    For more information, please visit these websites:
    www.microsoft.com/freedomtoinnovate/
    www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-settle.htm
1420 Centre Avenue, Apt. # 1310
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219
January 9,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing in response to the settlement reached between 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice over the antitrust suit. I 
feel that the settlement is a fair one. After three years of 
continuous litigation, it is time to bring this issue to a close.
    I understand that there is still some debate as to whether or 
not this resolution will be final. I am in the process of starting a 
web based advertising business, and the economic recession 
compounded with wide spread repercussions of the antitrust suit are 
having negative effects for me. Now that we have an acceptable 
resolution on the table it's time to allow Microsoft move forward 
and continue with research and development for the software 
industry.
    Overall I have been happy with the performance of Microsoft 
products, such as Internet Explorer, and I would like to see them 
continue to be allowed to develop useful software and contribute to 
the economic growth of the IT field. For these among other reasons I 
support the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Bryan Shipp
    Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00029512

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 1:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
14503 129th Avenue, NE
Kirkland, WA 98034
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am contacting you to show my support of the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. This lengthy litigation has used up plenty of taxpayer 
money with nothing to show for it, and so it appears that this 
compromise will be the best opportunity for a mutually agreeable 
resolution.
    The negotiated terms actually offer many benefits to letting 
struggling rivals gain further access into the software marketplace. 
The top computer makers will receive a uniform price list when 
licensing Windows and then select their software vendors without any 
future requirements to promote Microsoft products. Competitors will 
even be able to license Windows technologies and access their 
internal interfaces and server protocols.
    Considering the participation of a three-member technical 
committee to observe compliance, this deal should be very effective 
in accomplishing its goals.
    Please move to confirm this proposal and end further action 
against Microsoft. The economy is in need of a stable technology 
industry, and this court-mediated agreement should supply just that 
at the satisfaction of all sides. I thank you for your support.
    Sincerely,
    Clinton Jordan and Vicki Jordan



MTC-00029513

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 1:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the Attorney General's Office--;
    We are admirers of Microsoft in every way, and do not feel that 
they have done anything wrong. We are completely in favor of all of 
their procedures. We feel that the Dept. of Justice has been unfair 
to them, and have made very unfair decisions in relation to them. 
Hence, we want to register our desire to see this settlement made 
with Microsoft , and IN MICROSOFT'S FAVOR.
    Thank you,
    Dr. Robert E. Calmes and Mrs. Robert E. Calmes
    5216 Mission Hill Drive,
    Tucson, AZ 85718



MTC-00029514

From: Joel West
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 1:45am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The district court (upheld by the Court of Appeals) held that 
Microsoft had violated anti-trust statutes in its aggressive 
attempts to garner market share.
    Normally this would mean that there are two types of remedies:
    (1) Ongoing monitoring of compliance with a settlement 
agreement;
    (2) A structural change that uses the power of the market 
(rather than judicial oversight) to assure ongoing compliance.
    Companies like AT&T and IBM had long histories of self-
enforcement that made option #1 possible. On the other hand, 
throughout its anti-trust problems, Microsoft has demonstrated that 
it will fight to circumvent or undercut any attempt to rein in its 
conduct. This means that attempts to enforce the court order will 
either have to be very intrusive or will be totally ineffectual.
    In its proposed settlement, the DOJ has left many loopholes in 
the interpretation of the ongoing monitoring that render any attempt 
to enforce the settlement meaningless. Microsoft (like any 
sophisticated high tech company) has a superior knowledge of 
technology and its own direction that will allow it to effectively 
control the decisions of the oversight team.
    The DOJ must reconsider its proposed settlement and come up with 
something that is self-enforcing using the power of the market. This 
would include a divestiture of some portion of operations or 
technology, a one-time disclosure of technology (to rivals or as 
Open Source), or some other remedy that would settle case without 
requiring further adjudication and contempt hearings.
    Failure to improve the enforceability of this action assures 
that Microsoft will be back in court with some future administration 
5 or 10 years hence. This creates a powerful uncertainty for the 
entire U.S. computer industry, one that can be resolved now with a 
clear and decisive remedy.
    Joel West, Ph.D. 
    Lecturer UC
    Irvine Graduate School of Management
    http://www.gsm.uci.edu/joelwest



MTC-00029515

From: Mike Siciliano
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 1:45am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    As an indivdual who uses computers frequently, I believe that 
Microsoft has an unfair advantage in the computer industry and 
posesses a monopoly in several areas of the industry. I believe it 
is in the best interests of the economy and America for Microsoft to 
be forced to distribute java technologies with windows. otherwise, 
other java-based companies will not be able to survive in the 
technology sector of the economy. America has always been about free 
trade and equal opportunity. Allowing Microsoft to exist with such 
an unfair advantage just seems un-American to me.
    Mike Siciliano
    411 Hidden Pines Ln

[[Page 28661]]

    Del Mar, Ca 92014
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw,dkleinkn@yahoo...



MTC-00029516

From: 
[email protected]@inetg
w
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 1:47am
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust
    Her Honor, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly,
    Please Judge Kollar-Kotelly make Microsoft comply with all 
previous court orders and cease monopolistic practices. Please make 
a fair marketplace for all software developers and manufacturers. 
Thank you!
    Criag Hass
    38907 Hendricks Pk Rd
    Springfield, OR 97478
    541-;726-;9231
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00029517

From: Laura Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 12:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 28, 2002 (10:30pm MST)
RE: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am a software engineer who has been in the technology industry 
for several years. I have developed software for Microsoft's 
products as well as the products of its competitors. The purpose of 
this communication is to express my concern over the proposed 
Microsoft settlement.
    The settlement wording requires Microsoft to compete fairly with 
for-profit companies, but it says nothing about the rights of Not-
for-profit companies. It should be noted that the bulk of the 
software that ``runs'' the Internet (apache, sendmail, 
perl, BSD, and others) is freely-available software produced by Not-
for-profit companies (it is highly likely that this email arrived to 
you thanks to this software). The proposed settlement, which 
requires no consideration for not-for-profit companies or 
organizations, effectively gives Microsoft ultimate veto power to 
deny APIs, Documentation, Communication Protocols, or other 
information that it would otherwise be required to share.
    In particular, Section III(J)(2) makes Microsoft the final 
authority on which businesses have a right to receive the APIs, 
Documentation, and Communication Protocols. The wording states that 
Microsoft only has to give the preceding information to a company 
that ``(b) has a reasonable business need for the API, 
Documentation or Communications Protocol for a planned or shipping 
product, (c) meets reasonable, objective standards established by 
Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of its 
business''. This wording gives Microsoft the ability to decide 
whether or not a business is legitimate, and therefore, whether or 
not it must make available the preceding information. Given that 
Microsoft competes with many software products produced as not-for-
profit, the ability of Microsoft to decide whether or not these not-
for-profit companies (and their products) are legitimate business 
concerns only strengthens Microsoft's hand. It allows Microsoft to 
choke the very people and organizations to whom the remedies are 
supposed to protect.
    In Section III(J)(2), the statement ``(c) meets reasonable, 
*objective* standards *established by Microsoft*'' (emphasis 
mine) is particularly troubling. Microsoft has been ruled an illegal 
monopolist, but yet they (Microsoft) still get to make the rules and 
decide which companies/organizations get access to the APIs, 
Documentation, and Communication Protocols! Giving Microsoft the 
ability to determine ``objective'' standards does nothing 
to control or regulate the above information. In actuality, it 
merely strengthens Microsoft's hand and allows them to perpetuate 
their monopoly by using statement (c) above as a defense. Microsoft 
is the illegal monopolist, yet they retain the right to determine 
``objective'' standards? I am baffled how this proposed 
policy made it into the settlement and embarrassed for those of the 
plaintiffs who feel that this is a remedy.
    Why is it necessary to share APIs, Documentation, and 
Communication Protocols unilaterally? Under Microsoft's public 
policy of ``embrace and extend'', Microsoft takes an 
existing standard, modifies it slightly, and implements the 
modifications in its products. Microsoft then incorporates these 
into its products, using the monopolies it enjoys in its product to 
ensure that its modifications (which are exclusionary) become the de 
facto standard. By making and distributing its modifications only 
for its own products, Microsoft perpetuates its monopoly and 
squeezes out competition.
    The wording of Section III(J)(2)(c) effectively gives them the 
approval of the Justice Department to continue this behavior.
    Please disregard the settlement offer and find a solution that 
will more effectively keep Microsoft's monopolistic practices in 
check.
    Sincerely,
    Randy Smith
    [email protected]
    Mesa, AZ
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw,rsmith&@
coccamnetworks.com



MTC-00029518

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 1:49am
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust
    Her Honor, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly,
    Please Judge Kollar-Kotelly make Microsoft comply with all 
previous court orders and cease monopolistic practices. Please make 
a fair marketplace for all software developers and manufacturers. 
Thank you!
    Glen Hass
    38907 Hendricks Pk Rd
    Springfield, OR 97478
    541-;726-;9231
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00029519

From: Diana Rogers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 1:50am
Subject: Public Comment on Microsoft
    To US District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
    I am just one of the people over 65 with enjoy my computer and 
like the way Microsoft makes it easy for me to use the computer. I 
am very upset that special-interest groups have more say than the 
individual people who use computers on a regular basis.
    Because of what the Special Interest Groups have done to 
Microsoft (AOL/Sun Micro/ and all the rest of the Jealous companies) 
the stock market went in the toilet and I have lost of money along 
with a great many other people in the United States. Everyone say 
Enron was bad this was worse, but this law suit has caused much more 
damage in individual investors.
    Stop this silly law suit and send all the attorney generals 
home, as well as all the trial Lawyers.
    Microsoft is a good competitor. So let the others companies 
compete.
    I love all my programs in one and don't want separate
    Good Luck
    Diana Rogers
    23221--;60th Court So
    Kent,WA 98032
    253-;373-;1569
    [email protected]



MTC-00029520

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 1:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do believe the point has been made. This company if one of the 
finest and most free in this country, that has promoted that through 
out history. The settlement is good, and supports who we are and 
profess to be. Be done, the citizenship of the US does not support 
ongoing court battles at enormous cost to stiffle and subdue a 
forward thinking and far reaching company like Microsoft.
    Douglas Lind
    Kent Wa 98032



MTC-00029521

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 1:52am
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust
    Her Honor, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly,
    Please Judge Kollar-Kotelly make Microsoft comply with all 
previous court orders and cease monopolistic practices. Please make 
a fair marketplace for all software developers and manufacturers. 
Thank you!
    Janet M. Hass
    38907 Hendricks Pk Rd
    Springfield, OR 97478
    541-;726-;9231
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00029522

From: Wade McMullen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 1:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge,
    I may not be a complete expert in the finite detail of antitrust 
laws and regulations, but from what I do know it seems blatantly 
obvious that Microsoft is in violations of these laws and 
regulations. Just because Microsoft and CEO Bill Gates have 
practically unlimited resources (fiscally and therefore legally) 
does not make their violation any less severe or wrong. I love 
Microsoft, Bill Gates, and everything that they have provided to the 
public, but they are

[[Page 28662]]

hindering one of the most respected aspects of Ameican freedom: 
capitalism. Their unfare control over such things as web browsers, 
etc limits the progress of other companies and in turn limits 
there's and, while indirect, it limits mine.
    Respectfully,
    Wade McMullen
    213-;764-;1642
    Student
    CC:[email protected]@inetg
w,dkleinkn@yahoo



MTC-00029523

From: Brady, Scott W.
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/29/02 1:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Attached please find Novell Inc's Comment to the Proposed 
Settlement between Microsoft and the Department of Justice, pursuant 
to the Tunney Act. Please acknowledge receipt of this comment at 
your convenience. <<0901266.DOC>>
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,) ) Plaintiff,) ) v.)Civil Action No. 
98-;1232 (CKK) ) MICROSOFT CORPORATION,) ) Defendant.) ) ) ) 
STATE OF NEW YORK, et al.,) ) Plaintiffs,) ) v.)Civil Action No. 
98-;1233 (CKK) ) MICROSOFT CORPORATION,) ) Defendant.) )
    COMMENTS OF NOVELL, INC. IN OPPOSITION TO THE REVISED PROPOSED 
FINAL JUDGMENT
    I. Introduction
    A. Background
    In a unanimous en banc decision, the District of Columbia 
Circuit affirmed the trial court's ruling that Microsoft Corporation 
(``Microsoft'') violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by 
unlawfully acting to maintain its monopoly over Intel-compatible PC 
operating systems. See United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34 
(DC Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 350 (2001) 
(``Microsoft''). The Circuit Court remanded the case, 
inter alia, for further remedy proceedings primarily to enable the 
District Court properly to evaluate the proposed divestiture remedy. 
See id. at 105-;07. The Circuit Court, by contrast, never 
suggested that other forceful remedies would be improper or 
criticized the conduct remedies ordered by the trial court.
    On remand, the U.S. Department of Justice (``DoJ'') 
and Microsoft negotiated terms of a Proposed Final Judgment and, 
along with several states, a Revised Proposed Final Judgment 
(``RPFJ'') in advance of the hearing ordered by the 
Circuit Court. 66 Fed. Reg. 59,452 (Nov. 28, 2001). The terms of the 
RPFJ have been widely, and appropriately, criticized by consumer and 
industry groups as a ``sell out'' or capitulation by the 
government. See, e.g., James Barksdale, A Monopoly Unbound, Wash. 
Post, Dec. 4, 2001, at A25; Lawrence Lessig, It's Still a Safe World 
for Microsoft, N.Y. Times, Nov. 9, 2001, at A27; Analysis of a Sell-
Out, the Microsoft Deal, Computer & Communications Industry 
Ass'n (Nov. 21, 2001), available at http://www.ccianet.org/papers/
ms/sellout.php3 (visited Jan. 24, 2001). Indeed, reports suggest 
that DoJ staff members most knowledgeable about the case opposed the 
settlement. See Letter from Rep. John Conyers, Jr. to U.S. Att'y 
Gen. John Ashcroft (Nov. 6, 2001), available at http//
:www.house.gov/conyers/pr110601.htm (visited Jan. 24, 2001). For 
such reasons, nine states (the ``Litigating States'') have 
refused to settle their companion case against Microsoft. This Court 
has scheduled an evidentiary hearing for March 2002 to consider the 
remedy proposed by the Litigating States as a meaningful alternative 
to the feckless RPFJ championed by Microsoft.
    As required by the Tunney Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(h), the DoJ 
filed a Competitive Impact Statement (``CIS'') on November 
15, 2001, discussing the proposed settlement. 66 Fed. Reg. 59,452, 
59,460 (Nov. 28, 2001). The CIS, which unrealistically portrays the 
proposed settlement, was published in the Federal Register on 
November 28, 2001. The following Comments on the RPFJ are submitted 
pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 16(d) on behalf of Novell, Inc. 
(``Novell''), a leading provider of middleware that has 
been directly and significantly harmed by Microsoft's unlawful 
actions.
    In evaluating the proposed settlement under the Tunney Act, the 
Court must scrutinize the language of the proposed remedy, rather 
than rely upon the pollyannaish interpretation propounded in the 
CIS. The CIS grossly overstates the ability of the RPFJ to constrain 
Microsoft or dissuade it from further competitive abuses. Whether as 
the result of indifference on the part of DoJ or crafty negotiating 
by Microsoft, the RPFJ is replete with
    As used throughout these Comments, middleware refers to the 
commonly accepted, industry-wide usage of the term, while Middleware 
refers to the misguided definition of the term adopted in the RPFJ.
    limitations and loopholes that utterly deprive it of 
effectiveness. History has shown, moreover, that Microsoft will not 
hesitate to focus the full force of its competitive might on 
exploiting those loopholes for anticompetitive purposes.
    Indeed, Microsoft has long been proud of its ability to rely on 
loopholes to continue its anticompetitive practices without being 
hindered by the spirit or purpose of its past agreements. For 
example, in 1997, one of Microsoft's lawyers, Charles F. Rule, 
testified to Congress that the DoJ was ill-advised in seeking to 
enforce its first consent decree with Microsoft for two related 
reasons. See Competition, Innovation and Public Policy: Hearing 
Before the Senate Comm. On the Judiciary, 105 th Cong. (Nov. 4, 
1997) (statement of Charles F. Rule, then at Covington & 
Burling, now a partner at Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson) 
(Charles F. Rule Testimony). Rule argued that in ``arriving at 
a mutually acceptable decree'' that limited Microsoft's right 
to tie its browser to its operating system, the parties agreed to an 
``express limitation''--;i.e., a loophole--;that 
permitted Microsoft to develop ``integrated products.'' 
Id. Rule then pronounced that ``[a]mbiguities 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.'' Id. (citation omitted). 
Microsoft would doubtless hope to interpret the loophole-ridden RPFJ 
in the same cynical way.
    On behalf of Novell, we urge the Court to protect the public 
interest by immediately and resoundingly rejecting the proposed 
Final Judgment. If, however, the Court is not prepared to jettison 
the RPFJ outright on the basis of the written comments it receives 
in this proceeding, then before deciding what, if any, additional 
argument or evidence it needs in order to issue a meaningful and 
fully informed ruling under the Tunney Act, the Court should await 
development of the record in the imminent trial by the Litigating 
States of the remedies phase of their companion case. Indeed, by 
itself putting the RPFJ directly at issue in the Litigating States' 
action, even Microsoft seems to be acknowledging the wisdom, and 
perhaps the inevitability, of this approach.
    Defendant Microsoft Corporation's Remedial Proposal (Dec. 12, 
2001), State of New York, ex rel. Spitzer, et al. v. Microsoft 
Corp., No. 98-;1233.
    B. Summary
    The RPFJ utterly fails to protect the public interest, because 
it offers no relief against Microsoft's monopolistic abuses and it 
fails to ``pry open to competition a market that has been 
closed by defendants' illegal restraints.'' Int'l Salt Co., 
Inc. v. United States, 332 U.S. 392, 401 (1947). Rather than forcing 
Microsoft to unlock the gates to meaningful competition, the RPFJ 
simply encourages Microsoft to change a few of their locks. The 
failings of the RPFJ are numerous and overlapping. In these 
Comments, Novell will focus on only five of the RPFJ's most 
prominent defects:
    1. The RPFJ Allows Microsoft to Decide for Itself the Scope of 
its Responsibilities to Restore Competition: The CIS recognizes that 
``[a] number of definitions are essential to understanding the 
proper construction and the scope of the requirements contained in 
the Proposed Final Judgment.'' CIS, 66 Fed. Reg. at 59,464. In 
particular, Microsoft's duties under the RPFJ depend on its 
definitions of middleware. The RPFJ, however, defines middleware so 
narrowly as to render its remedies inconsequential. See RPFJ, 66 
Fed. Reg. at 59,459. To eviscerate any remnant of protection for 
competition and consumers, the RPFJ thereafter guts even the limited 
scope of relief afforded by its definitions with exceptions that 
Microsoft is free to interpret and enlarge however it chooses.
    2. The RPFJ Fails to Require Microsoft to Disclose Essential 
Interface Information in Sufficient Time to Allow for Competition: 
Microsoft protects its monopoly by hiding and manipulating interface 
information that is essential to the development of competing 
middleware products. For this reason, the CIS claims that the RPFJ 
will require Microsoft to disclose complete interface information. 
See CIS, 66 Fed. Reg. at 59,460. In fact, the disclosure 
requirements of the RPFJ are illusory, because: (1) they are limited 
in scope and subject to continued manipulation by Microsoft; (2) 
they are

[[Page 28663]]

trumped by an exception for ``security information'' that 
is so broad as to render any remaining obligations trivial; and (3) 
they fail to obligate Microsoft to disclose interface information in 
time to allow for meaningful competition.
    3. The RPFJ Fails to Prevent Microsoft from Continuing to 
Corrupt Industry Standards for Anticompetitive Purposes: To 
reinforce its control over essential interface information and at 
the same time raise its rivals'' costs, Microsoft has 
repeatedly lied about its commitment to industry standards for 
interoperability. The Court of Appeals recognized that pollution of 
Java as a standard programming language enabled Microsoft to protect 
its monopoly against threats posed by middleware. See Microsoft, 253 
F.3d at 76-;77. Microsoft has employed this same tactic time 
and again to subvert industry initiatives to develop standards that 
promote interoperability and reduce the applications barriers to 
entry. The RPFJ, however, is shockingly silent about such matters.
    4. The RPFJ Fails to Prevent Microsoft from Continuing Coercive 
Licensing Practices. Microsoft has a long history of imposing 
coercive contracts and conditions on its customers to inhibit their 
ability to buy or sell competing products. See Microsoft, 253 F.3d 
at 64. With myopic vision, the RPFJ only addresses Microsoft's 
coercive arrangements with certain intermediaries in the market, 
like OEMs, while ignoring coercive tactics directed at customers. 
See CIS, 66 Fed. Reg. at 59,460, 59,471.
    5. The RPFJ Fails To Adopt Effective Enforcement Procedures. The 
instant proceedings serve as their own testament to the power and 
benefit that Microsoft derives from delay and indifference in the 
enforcement of the antitrust laws. Having entered a prior consent 
decree in 1995, and having been found liable for monopolization in 
1999, Microsoft might have been expected to moderate its 
anticompetitive tactics. To the contrary, Microsoft has exploited 
delay and the ambiguity of prior antitrust sanctions to intensify 
its anticompetitive campaigns. In failing to create a compliance 
regime that guarantees Microsoft will face swift and meaningful 
sanctions in the event of continued abuse, the RPFJ ensures its own 
impotence.
    Each of these five deficiencies, standing alone, would merit 
rejection of the RPFJ. Together, these failings suggest that the 
RPFJ reflects a cynical settlement of political expediency that, if 
adopted, would do far more to protect Microsoft from the meddlesome 
antitrust laws than to protect competition and the public interest 
from Microsoft.
    II. The RPFJ Is Contrary to the Public Interest
    Fundamentally, the RPFJ fails to protect the public interest, 
because it fails to acknowledge and address the unique 
characteristics of software that Microsoft has exploited to maintain 
and enhance its monopoly. Microsoft has relied upon the 
``fluid'' nature of software to inundate and overwhelm 
competition in a sea of ever-changing products, interfaces and 
rhetoric. Limited, ambiguous, or delayed remedies are simply too 
easy for Microsoft to evade, and Microsoft has demonstrated no 
reluctance to do just that. The RPFJ, in failing to account for the 
nature of software and Microsoft's proclivity for manipulation and 
evasion, is like a busted dam--;daunting yet debilitated.
    A. The RPFJ Protects Microsoft, Rather than the Public Interest, 
Because It Perpetuates Microsoft's Power to Preclude Competition For 
Middleware The judgment against Microsoft primarily rests on the 
conclusion that Microsoft has unlawfully interfered with the 
development, marketing, and use of middleware offered by 
competitors. Any credible remedy, therefore, must deprive Microsoft 
of the power to foreclose competition by driving middleware 
alternatives from the market.
    The RPFJ, moreover, affronts the public interest to the extent 
that it reflects Microsoft's attempt to circumvent the judgment of 
this District Court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, that 
Microsoft has unlawfully acted to maintain its monopoly. Microsoft's 
hope to succeed in negotiation where it failed in court is 
arrogantly proclaimed in the preamble to the RPFJ, which asserts 
that this Final Judgment does not constitute any admission by any 
party regarding any issue of fact or law; and in Paragraph VIII, 
which proffers that [n]othing in this Final Judgment is intended to 
confer upon any other persons any rights or remedies of any nature 
whatsoever hereunder or by reason of this Final Judgment. RPFJ, 66 
Fed. Reg. at 59,453, 59,460. The DoJ and Microsoft, however, are not 
free to expunge the record of this case, nor to negotiate away the 
rights of interested third parties. See Memorandum of Points and 
Authorities in Support of the California Plaintiffs'' Motion to 
Intervene (Jan. 28, 2002), United States v. Microsoft Corp., No. 
98-;1232.
    But what is middleware? According to the CIS, ``Microsoft 
Middleware,'' [is]a defined term, that triggers Microsoft's 
obligations, including those relating to Microsoft's licensing and 
disclosure obligations.'' CIS, 66 Fed. Reg. at 59,464. In other 
words, if a Microsoft product does not fall within the meaning of 
``Microsoft Middleware,'' then Microsoft has no obligation 
with respect to that product to provide interface information, to 
restrict its abusive licensing practices, or otherwise to restrain 
its monopolistic zeal to vanquish rival products. Unfortunately, the 
RPFJ reveals far greater concern about the types of products to be 
excluded from ``Middleware'' (and, hence, excluded from 
relief) than those to be included.
    J. Microsoft Middleware means software code that 1.
    Microsoft distributes separately from a Windows Operating System 
Product to update that Windows Operating System Product;
    2. is Trademarked;
    3. provides the same or substantially similar functionality as a 
Microsoft Middleware Product; and
    4. includes at least the software code that controls most or all 
of the user interface elements of that Microsoft Middleware. 
Software code described as part of, and distributed separately to 
update, a Microsoft Middleware Product shall not be deemed Microsoft 
Middleware unless identified as a new major version of that 
Microsoft Middleware Product. A major version shall be identified by 
a whole number or by a number with just a single digit to the right 
of the decimal point. K. Microsoft Middleware Product means
    1. 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, and
    2. for any functionality that is first licensed, distributed or 
sold by Microsoft after the entry of this Final Judgment and that is 
part of any Windows Operating System Product
    a. Internet browsers, email client software, networked audio/
video client software, instant messaging software or
    b. functionality provided by Microsoft software that i. 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; Continued on following page
    Indeed, the RPFJ defines ``Microsoft Middleware'' so 
narrowly as to render any safeguards for consumers and competition 
inconsequential. Worse, the RPFJ allows Microsoft--;hardly the 
guardian of the public interest--;to decide what future products 
will, and will not, be considered ``Microsoft 
Middleware!'' Thus, the RPFJ puts the fox in charge of the hen 
house.
    1. The RPFJ's Vapid Definitions of Middleware As noted above, 
the scope of protection afforded by the RPFJ depends entirely on its 
definition of Microsoft Middleware. Rather than defining Microsoft 
Middleware in a Continued from previous page
    ii. is similar to the functionality provided by a Non-Microsoft 
Middleware Product; and iii. is Trademarked.
    Functionality that Microsoft describes or markets as being part 
of a Microsoft Middleware Product (such as a service pack, upgrade, 
or bug fix for Internet Explorer), or that is a version of a 
Microsoft Middleware Product (such as Internet Explorer 5.5), shall 
be considered to be part of that Microsoft Middleware Product.
    L. Microsoft Platform Software means (i) a Windows Operating 
System Product and/or (ii) a Microsoft Middleware Product.
    M. Non-Microsoft Middleware means a non-Microsoft software 
product running on a Windows Operating System Product that exposes a 
range of functionality to ISVs through published APIs, and that 
could, if ported to or made interoperable with, a non-Microsoft 
Operating System, thereby make it easier for applications that rely 
in whole or in part on the functionality supplied by that software 
product to be ported to or run on that non-Microsoft Operating 
System.
    N. Non-Microsoft Middleware Product means a non-Microsoft 
software product running on a Windows Operating System Product: (i) 
that exposes a range of functionality to ISVs through published 
APIs, and that could, if ported to or made

[[Page 28664]]

interoperable with, a non-Microsoft Operating System, thereby make 
it easier for applications that rely in whole or in part on the 
functionality supplied by that software product to be ported to or 
run on that non-Microsoft Operating System, and
    (ii) of which at least one million copies were distributed in 
the United States within the previous year. RPFJ, 66 Fed. Reg. at 
59,459.
    manner that provides a concrete foundation for meaningful 
relief, the RPFJ offers a convoluted definition that provides a 
foundation no stronger than the shifting sands. Specifically, the 
RPFJ defines ``Microsoft Middleware'' as ``software 
that provides the same or substantially similar functionality as a 
Microsoft Middleware Product.'' RPFJ, 66 Fed. Reg. at 59,459. 
In turn, the RPFJ specifies two criteria for ``Microsoft 
Middleware Products.'' See id. First, the RPFJ simply chooses a 
few types of software--;namely, Internet Explorer, Microsoft's 
Java Virtual Machine, Windows Media Player, Windows Messenger, 
Outlook Express, and their successors--;to be deigned 
``Microsoft Middleware Products.'' Id. Second, the RPFJ 
declares that other types of software may be considered 
``Microsoft Middleware Products'' if (and only if) three 
conditions are met; specifically, if the software:
    (i) is, or in the year preceding the commercial release of any 
new Windows Operating System Product the software was, distributed 
separately by Microsoft (or by an entity acquired by Microsoft) from 
a Windows Operating System Product;
    (ii) has functionality similar to that provided by a Non-
Microsoft Middleware Product; and
    (iii) is Trademarked. Id.
    Together, these definitions of Middleware assure that the 
protections of the RPFJ will never apply to more than a few forms of 
middleware and, in particular, to middleware that Microsoft has 
already crushed by anticompetitive means. Indeed, the 
inconsequential scope of the RPFJ will embolden Microsoft in its 
continuing quest to extinguish any new, or competitively 
significant, middleware offered to consumers. The RPFJ further 
ensures its own futility by allowing Microsoft to decide when, or 
if, to trigger any duty to comply. Thus, to qualify as a 
``Microsoft Middleware Product or as ``Microsoft 
Middleware,'' software must at some time be distributed 
separately by Microsoft from one of its ``Windows Operating 
System Products.'' Id. Nothing in the RPFJ, however, prohibits 
Microsoft from rolling all important middleware into its operating 
system products.
    To the contrary, the RPFJ remarkably provides that ``[t]he 
software code that comprises a Windows Operating System Product 
shall be determined by Microsoft in its sole discretion.'' 
RPFJ, 66 Fed. Reg. at 59,459 (emphasis added). To make its scope 
even more trivial (if that is possible), the RPFJ further provides 
that software code will not be considered either ``Microsoft 
Middleware'' or a ``Microsoft Middleware Product,'' 
unless it is ``Trademarked'' by Microsoft. See id. at 16. 
In other words, even if Microsoft finds it necessary, for some 
reason, to distribute new software separately from a ``Windows 
Operating System Product,'' such software still will not fall 
within the remedy, if Microsoft decides in its sole discretion not 
to seek trademark protection for the product. This is absurd.5
    Finally, even assuming the RPFJ retains some sliver of 
significance despite its slight scope, additional broad and pliable 
exclusions assure that Microsoft would be well protected against any 
meaningful duty to comply. For example, the RPFJ provides that any 
``Microsoft Middleware'' must ``include at least the 
software code that controls most or all of the user interface 
elements of that Microsoft Middleware.'' Id. Thus, Microsoft 
could avoid any compliance duties simply by breaking up code for 
middleware into small units of code, none of which ``controls 
most or all of the user interface elements.''6 Likewise, the 
RPFJ excludes from The ridiculous implication of this loophole is 
that there exists some correlation between a decision by Microsoft 
to assert trademark protection for software and Microsoft's ability 
to exploit such software for anticompetitive purposes. To the 
contrary, this limitation on the scope of the RPFJ is simply a 
``give away'' that enhances the misdirected protection 
afforded by the RPFJ to Microsoft.
    Notably, the DoJ appears to have misread, or misunderstood, the 
import of this element of its own definition. The CIS asserts that 
this last element of the definition is: to ensure that the 
definition captures situations where Microsoft chooses to divide up 
the software code...and to distribute that code not in one block but 
in smaller blocks the fourth requirement sets a minimum functional 
requirement that in no case (regardless of the size, or manner of, 
distributing the code) shall the software code constituting 
Microsoft Middleware be less than that which controls most, or all 
of, the user interface elements of that Microsoft Middleware.
    CIS, 66 Fed. Reg. at 59,464. In fact, the language of the RPFJ 
has precisely the opposite effect of what DoJ claims. Because the 
proposed four elements of ``Microsoft Continued on following 
page the definition of ``Microsoft Middleware'' any 
``updates'' to existing ``Microsoft Middleware 
Products,'' unless Microsoft, in its sole discretion, decides 
to label the update a ``major version'' of the product. 
Id. To avoid compliance, therefore, Microsoft need only rely on 
``minor'' updates to impede competition, or call every 
update ``minor,'' regardless of import. In sum, the RPFJ 
ultimately allows Microsoft to decide for itself the scope of its 
duties. In view of Microsoft's demonstrated enthusiasm for legal 
loopholes, it is hard to imagine a remedy proposal of lesser value.
    2. The RPFJ's Limited Scope Precludes Protection of the Public 
Interest The aulty (and nearly non-existent) scope of the RPFJ is 
made especially clear when it is compared with the broader 
definition of middleware proposed by the Litigating States in their 
proposed remedy. In contrast to the RPFJ, the Litigating States 
define middleware in conformity with the judgment against Microsoft 
and would not permit Microsoft to continue its abusive practices 
simply by making discretionary and trivial changes to its own 
business practices.7 Plaintiff Litigating States' Remedial Proposals 
at 34-;35 (Dec. 7, 2001), United States v. Microsoft Corp., No. 
98-;1232 (States' Remedy). Continued from previous page 
Middleware'' are all required, this last element further 
limits, rather than expands, the scope of relief. 7 The Litigating 
States would define middleware as follows: w. Middleware means 
software, whether provided in the form of files installed on a 
computer or in the form of Web-Based Software, that operates 
directly or through other software within an Operating System or 
between an Operating System (whether or not on the same computer) 
and other software (whether or not on the same computer) by offering 
services via APIs or Communications Interfaces to such other 
software, and could, if ported to or made 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 without limitation Internet browsers, network operating 
systems, e-mail client software, media creation, delivery and 
playback software, instant messaging software, voice recognition 
software, digital imaging software, the Java Virtual Machine, 
calendaring systems, Handheld Computing Device synchronization 
software, directories, and directory services and management 
software. Examples of software that are not Continued on following 
page
    Remarkably, the DoJ's own prior submission to the Court belies 
any arguments that the RPFJ is sufficiently broad in scope to 
protect the public interest. Although Microsoft hopes to limit any 
relief to forms of middleware that no longer threaten its monopoly, 
the DoJ has explained:
    In crafting an effective Sherman Act remedy, a court must use 
the record of a backward-looking trial to fashion forward-looking 
relief. Looking forward, the Court must anticipate that Microsoft, 
unless restrained by appropriate equitable relief, likely will 
continue to perpetuate its monopoly by the same anticompetitive 
methods revealed at trial, although directed at whatever new 
competitive threat arises. Neither the Netscape browser nor Java 
continues to have the prospect of lowering the applications barrier 
to entry, and it is not certain where future threats to Microsoft's 
operating system will arise. But there are several possibilities 
that ought to be taken into account in crafting an appropriate 
remedy for Microsoft's violations.
    Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of Proposed Final Judgment 
(``DoJ Mem. In Supp.'') at 27-;28, United States v. 
Microsoft Corp., No. 98-;1232 (emphasis added). Elsewhere, the 
DoJ has admitted that important new middleware technologies that 
must be protected from Microsoft's tactics may include ``voice 
recognition software, media streaming technology and e-mail 
software,'' as well as ``many server-based middleware 
products Continued from previous page Middleware within the meaning 
of this Final Judgment are disk compression and memory management 
software.

[[Page 28665]]

    x. Microsoft Middleware Product means:
    i. Internet browsers, e-mail client software, media creation, 
delivery and playback software, instant messaging software, voice 
recognition software, digital imaging software, directories, 
Exchange, calendaring systems, systems and enterprise management 
software, Office, Handheld Computing Device synchronization 
software, directory services and management software, the Common 
Language Runtime component of the .Net framework, and Compact 
Framework, whether provided in the form of files installed on a 
computer or in the form of Web-Based Software, or
    ii. Middleware distributed by Microsoft that (1) is, or in the 
three years preceding this Judgment has been, distributed separately 
from an Operating System Product, any successors thereto, or (2) 
provides functionality similar to that provided by Middleware 
offered by a Microsoft competitor. States' Remedy at 34-;35. 
that have historically been sold or distributed separately by 
Microsoft or other firms, including a directory service (Active 
Directory), an application server (Microsoft Transaction 
Server--;MTS), and a web server (Internet Information 
Server--;IIS)''. Id. at 28; Affidavit of Rebecca Henderson, 
attached as Exhibit to DoJ Mem. Of Supp. (``Henderson 
Aff.'').
    In sum, the RPFJ protects Microsoft, rather than the public, by 
limiting restrictions on Microsoft monopolistic tactics to forms of 
middleware that Microsoft has already, and unalterably, made 
irrelevant. Meanwhile, the RPFJ will only fuel Microsoft's zeal to 
replicate its unlawful victories over Netscape and Java in its 
continuing efforts to extinguish other middleware threats to its 
monopoly.
    3. The RPFJ Subverts the Public Interest By Providing Immunity 
for Microsoft's Unlawful Efforts to Destroy Middleware Alternatives 
to Active Directory Perhaps the most insidious characteristic of the 
RPFJ is that it appears specifically written to impart antitrust 
immunity to Microsoft for using the same unlawful tactics against 
competition threatened by directory services middleware that it used 
to destroy competition threatened by Netscape's internet browser. 
Remarkably, the RPFJ would not require Microsoft to lift a finger to 
avail itself of such protection. With utter disregard for the public 
interest, the RPFJ attempts to legitimize conduct that has already 
been declared unlawful by both the District Court and the Court of 
Appeals.
    Specifically, the RPFJ permits Microsoft to engage in any 
anticompetitive tactic of choice against middleware threats, so long 
as Microsoft chooses to bundle, bind, or even just market, 
competitively critical middleware with its monopoly operating system 
products. Although memories can be short in the fast-paced 
technology industry, it defies credulity that the RPFJ ignores six 
years of antitrust litigation and the Court of Appeals'' 
judgment against Microsoft, which directly resulted from Microsoft's 
simple, but unlawful, decision to combine middleware with its 
monopoly operating systems.
    As discussed below, there can be no question that directory 
services software, such as Novell's ``eDirectory,'' 
Microsoft's ``Active Directory,'' and iPlanet's 
``Directory Server,'' have become competitively critical 
links between the desktop and network computing that threaten 
Microsoft's monopoly. For this reason, it is hardly surprising that 
Microsoft hopes to insulate directory services software from 
antitrust scrutiny. See Defendant Microsoft Corporation's Remedial 
Proposal at 9 (Dec. 12, 2001), United States v. Microsoft Corp., No. 
98-;1232 (arguing that ``directory services and management 
software are plainly not ``middleware'' within the meaning 
of the Court of Appeals'' decision''). Yet, Microsoft 
offers only rhetoric to support its wish for directory services 
middleware to be excluded from any remedy in this case. Indeed, 
Microsoft refutes its own claim. Microsoft notes that [a]s the Court 
of Appeals used the term, middleware' refers to software products 
that are capable of running on multiple client operating systems and 
that could provide a general-purpose platform for applications, such 
that developers might begin to rely upon APIs exposed by the 
middleware for basic routines rather than relying upon the API set 
included in Windows' and the middleware could take over some or all 
of Windows' valuable platform functions.' Id. (citing Microsoft, 253 
F.3d at 53). Technology consumers, middleware competitors, and 
independent experts all agree that directory services software falls 
squarely within even Microsoft's definition of 
``middleware.''
    For example, Internet2 is a consortium of technology consumers 
that includes over 180 universities working in partnership with 
industry and government on advanced network applications and 
technologies. Internet2 explains:
    [A] key part of [the Internet2] initiative is to promote open 
standards ``middleware, or ``glue'', [which] is a 
layer of software between the network and the applications. This 
software provides services such as identification, authentication, 
authorization, directories, and security. In today's Internet, 
applications usually have to provide these services themselves, 
which leads to competing and incompatible standards. By promoting 
standardization and interoperability, middleware will make advanced 
network applications much easier to use.
    Likewise, the well-respected Gartner Group, a leading provider 
of technology research, has emphasized that ``directory 
services'' are playing an increasingly important role as 
middleware platforms for integrating diverse applications and other 
forms of software, including other middleware products and operating 
systems. See Conference Presentation, Active Directory, Gartner 
Group at 5, available at http://www.gartnerweb.com/public/static/ 
win2000/actdirect.pdf (visited Jan. 23, 2002). The Gartner Group 
notes:
    [O]ne of the important parts of integration middleware [such as 
a directory service] is the superservice. A superservice presents to 
the application program its own superAPI, effectively masking or 
superseding the API(s) exposed by other software layers. A 
superservice provides services, such as metadirectory, security and/
or transaction management, across two or more OSs [i.e., Operating 
Systems], ORBs, TP monitors, DBMSs, application servers and/or 
networking layers. Id.
    Thus, directory services fall squarely within Microsoft's 
admitted definition of middleware. See Microsoft's Remedial Proposal 
at 9 (citing Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 53).8 Directory services expose 
APIs as an alternative to Windows APIs, and serve as platforms for 
diverse applications.
    In view of the competitive importance of directory services as 
middleware, it is hardly surprising that Microsoft has attempted to 
drive products that compete with its Active Directory software from 
the market by using the same unlawful tactics that it used against 
Netscape. For example, Microsoft has commingled code to bind Active 
Directory to its Windows operating systems. In recent versions of 
Windows, Microsoft has also manipulated interfaces specifically to 
prevent users from replacing Active Directory with eDirectory. 
(Although eDirectory can be used with recent Microsoft operating 
systems, it can only be used concurrently with Active Directory.) 9 
Second, Microsoft has undermined the use of a standard
    See also Windows 2000: Blueprint for Domination, Computer & 
Communications Industry Ass'n at 24 (Apr. 2000), available at http:/
/www.ccianet.org/papers/ ms/blueprint--;for--;domination.pdf 
(visited Jan. 24, 2001) (``CCIA White Paper'') 
(``Active Directory is the integrated directory service for 
Windows 2000. It is the glue that binds Windows desktops to Windows 
2000 Servers. Active Directory is a critical component for any end 
user, Application Developer, and IT manager that is using, 
developing, or managing computers and applications in a Microsoft 
distributed computing environment.'').
    In Windows 2000, Microsoft redesigned its authentication system 
and refused to disclose the APIs necessary for Novell to continue 
``redirecting'' Microsoft calls for Active Directory to 
eDirectory. Novell used a technique called ``redirection'' 
to allow an earlier version of its directory services software, 
called NDS, to interoperate effectively with WindowsNT. By moving 
and encrypting interface information in Windows 2000 and Windows XP, 
Microsoft has prevented Novell from using redirection and has forced 
Novell to ``synchronize'' its directory services software, 
now called eDirectory, with Active Directory. As a result of this 
tactic, customers may not run eDirectory alone, but can only use it 
as a supplement to Active Directory. See CCIA White Paper, supra 
(``The industry protocol in this case Light Directory Access 
Protocol or LDAP in favor of proprietary protocols that inhibit 
development of multi-platform (or non-Microsoft) networks.10
    Third, Microsoft has employed coercive licenses, called client 
access licenses or CALs, to discourage users from installing non-
Microsoft directory services.11 More than surprising, however, is 
that the RPFJ will sanction such unlawful conduct for the simple 
reason that Microsoft has had the foresight (in light of this 
litigation) to decide against ever distributing Active Directory 
separately from Windows. Although Microsoft's decision, standing 
alone and

[[Page 28666]]

without regard to any anticompetitive consequences, will exempt 
Microsoft's conduct relating to Active Directory from antitrust 
scrutiny under the RPFJ, the notion that such conduct does nothing 
to entrench Microsoft's monopoly is preposterous.
    B. The Proposed Final Judgment Would Have No Effect, Because it 
Fails to Require Meaningful Disclosures by Microsoft of Interface 
Information The next extraordinary deficiency of the RPFJ is the 
manner in which it purports to require Microsoft to disclose 
critical interface information that would allow for the way 
Microsoft's Active Directory is implement on the client-side makes 
it impossible to redirect services to alternative directory service 
providers such as Novell's NDS. This means Active Directory must be 
present on a network of Windows 2000 machines and that Novell can no 
longer compete as a substitute for directory services as they did 
with Windows NT.''); Active Directory, Gartner Group, supra, at 
9 (``With [Windows] NT v.
    4, Novell has used a redirection model with its NDS for NT 
product to provide a solution for managing heterogeneous NDS and NT 
domain environments. We believe this approach will be difficult, if 
not impossible, for Novell to implement with Active Directory in 
Windows 2000.'').
    10 See CCIA White Paper, supra (``Active Directory is also 
used as Microsoft's vehicle for locking customers into a Microsoft 
proprietary standard. Active Directory supports standard interfaces 
such as Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) and Domain Name 
Service (DNS). These protocols are subsets of what Active Directory 
supports, meaning that no other directory services can substitute 
for Active Directory.'') For a discussion of LDAP, see Novell 
Technical Information Document:GroupWise and LDAP Whitepaper (Feb. 
15, 2000), available at http://support.novell.com/cgi-bin/search /
searchtid.cgi?/2955731.htm (visited Jan. 22, 2002). 11 See 
discussion of CALs, infra at Section II.D.
    development and effective implementation of competing middleware 
products. The disclosure requirement of the RPFJ can be summarized 
as: (1) too little; (2) too late; and (3) too full of loopholes. In 
fact, the RPFJ would expressly allow Microsoft to continue the same 
anticompetitive practices that have already enabled it to buttress 
its monopoly.
    1. Too Little Disclosure: The RPFJ's Inadequate Definitions of 
Interface Information--;The RPFJ defines interface information 
so narrowly and incompletely that any compliance by Microsoft with 
its disclosure requirements would have little, if any, effect. The 
RPFJ includes the following definitions:
    A. Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) means the 
interfaces, including any associated callback interfaces, that 
Microsoft Middleware running on a Windows Operating System Product 
uses to call upon that Windows Operating System Product in order to 
obtain any services from that Windows Operating System Product.
    B. Communications Protocol means the set of rules for 
information exchange to accomplish predefined tasks between a 
Windows Operating System Product and a server operating system 
product connected via a network, including, but not limited to, a 
local area network, a wide area network or the Internet. These rules 
govern the format, semantics, timing, sequencing, and error control 
of messages exchanged over a network. * * *
    E. Documentation means all information regarding the 
identification and means of using APIs that a person of ordinary 
skill in the art requires to make effective use of those APIs. Such 
information shall be of the sort and to the level of specificity, 
precision and detail that Microsoft customarily provides for APIs it 
documents in the Microsoft Developer Network (MSDN). RPFJ, 66 Fed. 
Reg. at 59,458.
    The first, and most obvious, defect of the proposed disclosures 
is the scope of Microsoft's duty. Under the definitions of the RPFJ, 
Microsoft would need only to disclose certain interface information 
affecting interoperability of ``Microsoft Middleware'' and 
a ``Windows Operating System Product.'' See id. at 59,459. 
As discussed above, those terms are defined by the RPFJ to allow 
Microsoft to avoid compliance altogether, because ``Microsoft 
Middleware'' is defined absurdly narrowly and ``Windows 
Operating System Products'' are defined as whatever Microsoft 
wants them to be. See id. Microsoft's history makes clear that it 
will simply evade this remedy by declining ever again to offer 
middleware products separately from its operating systems (or at 
least it will not assert trademark protection for them). Second, the 
interface definitions fail to articulate an objective standard for 
evaluating Microsoft's compliance. To date, Microsoft has never 
admitted that it has withheld interface information to competitors; 
instead it points to volumes of information it provides to 
independent developers through its Microsoft Development Network 
(MSDN). Meanwhile, it is obvious to competitors and independent 
observers that while Microsoft has often published interface 
information that allows competing products to work with Microsoft's 
operating system products, it frequently refuses to publish 
information that allows competing products to work well with 
Microsoft's products or in the same way as Microsoft's products. 
Indeed, Microsoft has notoriously allowed its own programmers and 
developers to access and rely upon secret or unpublished APIs, 
calls, or other interface information to assure full 
interoperability of its products, while forcing competitors to use 
only limited sets of information that allow for 
``interoperability''--;but only in inefficient and 
constrained ways.12 Nothing in the RPFJ clearly prohibits Microsoft 
from disclosing selective interface information that provides for 
limited interoperability. Indeed, paragraph E. of the RPFJ makes 
clear that Microsoft need not offer any better 
``Documentation'' than it does at the present time. See 
id. at 59,458. For all the foregoing reasons, the information 
currently available has proven grossly inadequate to allow for 
meaningful competition. See id.
    2. Too Late Disclosure: The RPFJ's Inadequate Definition of 
Timeliness The RPFJ acknowledges that disclosures of interface 
information must be sufficiently timely to enable competing 
providers of middleware to develop alternatives in a commercially 
reasonable time frame. The CIS explains: Whenever Microsoft develops 
an updated version of a Windows Operating System Product, it must 
disclose all relevant APIs and Documentation in a Timely Manner, 
meaning at the time Microsoft first releases a widespread beta test 
version of that
    12 See, e.g., Jesse Berst, APIs: Microsoft's Hidden Full Nelson, 
ZDNet (Jun. 28, 2000), available at http://www.zdnet.com/anchordesk/
stories/story/0,10738,2595479,00.html (visited Jan. 22, 2002); Sven 
B. Schreiber, Undocumented Windows 2000 Secrets: A Programmer's 
Cookbook (2001); Prasad Dabek, Sandeep Phadke & Milind Borate, 
Undocumented WindowsNT (1999).
    Windows Operating System Product (i.e., one made available to 
150,000 or more beta testers). If, alternatively, Microsoft develops 
a new major version of Microsoft Middleware, it must disclose any 
APIs and Documentation used by that middleware to interoperate with 
any Windows Operating System Product not later than the release of 
the last major beta version of that middleware (i.e., the version 
before the release of any release candidate version of the 
middleware). This dual-timing trigger mechanism is important to 
ensure that ISVs and other third parties learn of all relevant APIs 
and the information needed effectively to use them well in advance 
of the actual commercial releases of the relevant Microsoft 
software, so that the third parties can ensure that their own 
competing products function on and interoperate with Windows. CIS, 
66 Fed. Reg. at 59,468 (emphasis in original).13
    Notwithstanding the wishful (and unrealistic) analysis of the 
CIS, the language of the RPFJ fails to offer any meaningful 
assurance of timeliness. The specified date for release of interface 
information for new middleware products is the last 
``beta'' release, which is typically very shortly before 
the final version of the software is released to the public. Such 
beta releases are generally made a year or a year and a half after 
early code is provided to Microsoft operating systems and 
applications developers. In effect, under current practices the 
proposed finding would allow Microsoft to give its own middleware 
developers a year and one-half head start over competitors.
    In fact, the head start the RPFJ affords Microsoft is likely to 
be far longer (or even infinitely long). By triggering the 
disclosure obligation on the date of the ``last'' beta 
release that includes at least 150,000 testers, the RPFJ would, once 
again, allow Microsoft to decide if and when (if ever) the 
disclosure obligation would take effect. Nothing in the RPFJ would 
prevent Microsoft from delaying the ``final'' beta release 
for more than a year and a half, or even from deciding to test new 
software exclusively in stages released to groups of less than 
150,000 testers.
    13 The RPFJ defines ``Timely Manner'' for disclosure 
of interface information as ``the time Microsoft first releases 
a beta test version of a Windows Operating System Product that is 
distributed to 150,000 or more beta testers.'' RPFJ, 66 Fed. 
Reg. at 59,459.

[[Page 28667]]

    3. The RPFJ's Security Loophole Precludes Meaningful Relief The 
RPFJ has been described as Swiss cheese without the cheese. Of the 
numerous loopholes and deficiencies of the RPFJ, none is larger than 
the broad and general exclusion it affords Microsoft for 
``security'' information, as follows:
    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 a particular installation or group of installations 
of anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital rights 
management, encryption or authentication systems, including without 
limitation, keys, authorization tokens or enforcement criteria; or 
RPFJ, 66 Fed. Reg. at 59,455-;56.
    DoJ attempts to justify this security exception on grounds that 
``[it] is a narrow exception, limited to specific end-user 
implementations of security items such as actual keys, authorization 
tokens or enforcement criteria, the disclosure of which would 
compromise the security of ``a particular installation or group 
of installations'' of the listed security features.'' CIS, 
66 Fed. Reg. at 59,472. In fact, this exception is fatal to the 
efficacy of the RPFJ. Much of what software developers like Novell 
need in order to develop products that efficiently interoperate with 
Microsoft Windows products is now being encrypted by Microsoft.
    Under the rubric of security, Microsoft harms interoperability 
by manipulating the encryption, signing or tagging of calls made 
between its operating systems and middleware. Encrypted or signed 
calls made by Microsoft's operating systems can be seen by competing 
middleware, but either cannot be read by them or the calls cannot be 
executed properly and with full function. Calls made by competing 
server operating systems are rejected by Microsoft's products 
because they are not encrypted or signed in the Microsoft way. 
Microsoft, for example, now encrypts information exchanged between 
its directory service (Active Directory) and its operating systems. 
The effect of such ``security'' is to prevent Novell's 
eDirectory or other directory services from replacing Active 
Directory in a network. Even if Novell discovers, or is provided 
with, the interfaces between Active Directory and Windows, 
Microsoft's encryption of the information exchanges will effectively 
prevent the use of an alternative directory service. This tactic, 
moreover, could be replicated wherever middleware exchanges 
information, or calls, with Windows. Although encryption or signing 
of calls may, in fact, promote security, there is no legitimate 
reason for such security methods to harm interoperability. In 
simplest terms, information security is generally afforded by 
encrypting or ``locking up'' sensitive information and 
safeguarding the ``keys'' to those locks. Rather then 
relying on well established technologies to protect the 
``keys'' to sensitive information, Microsoft routinely 
prevents competitors from using the same types of locks that its 
uses for its own products. This tactic unnecessarily inhibits 
interoperability, because information security invariably depends 
not on the type of lock that is used (since a variety of tamper-
proof locks have been developed), but solely on protection of the 
keys.14 Microsoft routine ignores such distinctions to enable it to 
harm interoperability under the rubric of security.
    In sum, the ``security'' exception to the RPFJ harms, 
rather than protects, the public interest. As interpreted by 
Microsoft, the exception will enable it to withhold information that 
is irrelevant to securing networks from hacking, viruses and the 
like, but highly relevant to securing networks from meaningful 
competition.
    4. The RPFJ's Inadequate Disclosure Requirements Precludes 
Protection of the Public Interest
    As recognized in the CIS and DC Circuit Court opinion, Microsoft 
has prevented competitors from offering meaningful Middleware 
alternatives in three main ways: (1) Microsoft has taken advantage 
of the fluidity of software to continually reconfigure its products 
in ways that make it difficult or impossible for even superior 
middleware offerings of competitors to remain viable; (2) Microsoft 
has refused to disclose interface information that
    One of the most remarkable aspects of modern encryption 
technology is that it allows for virtually complete security of a 
``key'' needed to unlock an encrypted message. In the 
world of physical locks and keys, a key is never entirely secure 
(even if it is never shared), because a locksmith can reproduce a 
key if he or she is given the lock. By contrast, in the world of 
bits and bytes, modern encryption can prevent a ``key'' 
from being copied, even if an expert knows how the key was made and 
is given the locked (i.e., encrypted) message.
    would enable competitors to offer middleware products that 
operate effectively; and (3) Microsoft has engaged in coercive sales 
and marketing tactics that force distributors and consumers to favor 
even inferior Microsoft products over those of competitors. See CIS, 
66 Fed. Reg. at 59,461.
    Microsoft's refusal to disclose meaningful and timely interface 
information has been especially damaging to competitors, like 
Novell, who have repeatedly demonstrated their ability to develop 
superior alternatives to Microsoft products in the increasingly rare 
instances in which they have been able to obtain, or ascertain on 
their own, the critical interface information that allows for the 
effective interoperation of their middleware with Microsoft 
operating systems. As a result, the public is denied the benefits of 
innovation and the opportunity to choose among competing 
alternatives.
    The CIS recognizes that meaningful disclosure of interface 
information by Microsoft is essential to effective relief. The CIS 
explains: ``[T]he effect of Section III.D [of the RPFJ] is to 
assure to Non-Microsoft Middleware meaningful access to the same 
services provided by the operating system as those available to 
Microsoft Middleware. Microsoft Middleware will not have access to 
any hidden or proprietary features of Windows Operating System 
Products that might allow it to operate more effectively.'' Id. 
at 59,468. Unfortunately, the RPFJ again fails to deliver on DoJ's 
purported goal.
    In contrast to the RPFJ, a meaningful remedy must account for 
the fact that Microsoft manipulates interface information in a 
variety of ways to preclude competition. Although too numerous to 
recount, Microsoft's tactics include: ? ``Secret 
Interfaces''--;Microsoft does not publish all the 
interfaces it uses and does not publish all the interface 
information that others need to develop products that interoperate 
with Microsoft software. ? ``Crippled 
Interfaces''--;For some functions, Microsoft publishes 
information about an interface that is inferior to the interface 
that Microsoft itself uses to accomplish a function, or publishes 
incomplete information about an interface.
    ``Kick Me Interfaces''--;Sometimes, Microsoft 
publishes information about an interface that Microsoft uses to 
perform a function, but it ``marks'' non-Microsoft 
software in a way that assures the interface will operate in an 
inferior way. Microsoft can ``mark'' competitors software 
through tagging, signing, encrypted passwords, or by noting the 
absence of such features. ? Moving Interfaces--;If, by some 
means, a third party has been able to obtain adequate interface 
information that Microsoft doesn't want it to have, Microsoft will 
simply move the interface. For example, Novell successfully figured 
out how to enable its directory services software to interoperate 
with Windows NT. To counter Novell's success, in Windows 2000 
Microsoft broke up and moved the computer files containing the 
interface information used by Novell and marked, or signed, 
information required for the interfaces so that Novell could neither 
use Microsoft's interface information nor replace it.
    The typical result of such tactics is that Microsoft makes 
competing products appear inferior to Microsoft's products. 
Microsoft's actions may make a competing product appear slower, 
require more memory, or perform with limited functionality. These 
tactics also enable Microsoft to persuade customers to buy 
Microsoft's inferior and/or more expensive products simply to avoid 
Microsoft's roadblocks.15
    15 Perhaps most remarkable, is the arrogance with which 
Microsoft exploits its anticompetitive efforts to impede 
interoperability. Microsoft, for example, repeatedly issues 
marketing materials that criticize products offered by Novell and 
other competitors for technical problems cause by Microsoft's 
refusal to allow effective interoperability with Windows.
    Thus, in 1998, Microsoft's Website criticized Novell's directory 
services product, NDS for NT, because ``[i]t is not integrated 
with the operating system.'' Further, Microsoft proclaimed that 
Windows NT is ``successful,'' because ``customers 
have found that Windows NT Server suits most of their needs now and 
they are confident that Microsoft will deliver on other 
functionality that they need in the near future. Such is the case 
with directory services.'' In other words, in 1998, Microsoft 
admitted that it did not yet offer a competitive directory services

[[Page 28668]]

middleware product, but it aggressively discouraged customers from 
using Novell's product based on interoperability limitations created 
by Microsoft and its ``promise'' of improving its software 
sometime in the future. See NDS for NT: Increases Complexity and 
Cost Without Adding Value, available at Continued on following page
    The remedy proposed by the Litigating States, in contrast to the 
RPFJ, would prevent continued exploitation and manipulation of 
critical interface information by Microsoft and thereby protect the 
public interest. First, the Litigating States have proposed 
definitions of interface information that clearly obligate Microsoft 
to provide the same interface information that is made available to 
its own programmers and developers to allow for ``full'' 
and ``efficient'' interoperability of products. See 
States' Remedy at 31-;32. Further, the Litigating States'' 
proposal would provide for monitoring and review of Microsoft's 
disclosure by creating a clean room in which qualified industry 
representatives could examine and test the underlying computer code. 
See id. at 11-;12. Second, the proposed remedy of the 
Litigating States, in contrast to the RPFJ, would require 
disclosures to be sufficiently timely to allow for meaningful 
competition. The Litigating States define ``Timely 
Manner'' to mean:
    at a minimum, publication on a Web site accessible to ISVs, 
IHVs, OEMs and Third-Party Licensees at the earliest of the time 
that such APIs, Technical Information, or Communications Interfaces 
are (i) disclosed to Microsoft's applications developers, or (ii) 
used by Microsoft's own Platform Software developers in software 
released by Microsoft in alpha, beta, release candidate, final or 
other form, or (iii) disclosed to any third party, or (iv) within 90 
days of a final release of a Windows Operating System Product, no 
less than 5 days after a material change is made between the most 
recent beta or release candidate version and the final release. Id. 
at 36-;37. Continued from previous page
    http://www.strom.com/awards/98a.html (visited Jan. 13, 2002) 
(republication of paper appearing on Microsoft's website until Jan. 
22, 1998). Four years later, Microsoft's Active Directory is still 
generally regarded as inferior to Novell's eDirectory, yet continues 
to increase market share at Novell's expense as a result of 
Microsoft's anticompetitive acts. See, e.g., Products of the Year, 
Network Magazine (May 7, 2000), available at http://
www.networkmagazine.com/article/NMG20010413S0005 (visited Jan. 15, 
2002).
    Third, the Litigating States would close the gaping 
``security'' loophole of the RPFJ by requiring disclosure 
of information that allows competitors to participate with Microsoft 
in security mechanisms without compromising security. C. The RPFJ 
Will Encourage Microsoft To Continue To Corrupt Industry Standards 
for Anticompetitive Purposes Although the DC Circuit expressly held 
that Microsoft acted to protect its monopoly through undermining 
industry standards by deceiving software developers, the RPFJ fails 
to address this concern at all. Industry standards are often the key 
to interoperability among products that must communicate with each. 
Time after time, Microsoft has undermined or corrupted such 
standards to prevent competing middleware products from 
interoperating effectively with its dominant operating systems. For 
example, Kerberos is an industry standard for encryption, in which 
certain fields are reserved for optional use. Microsoft, however, 
has used one of those fields to produce its own proprietary version 
of the standard. In itself, this is unobjectionable. Microsoft, 
however, has gone one step further: it has manipulated its operating 
systems and middleware so that they will use and accept only the 
Microsoft version of the Kerberos standard.16 This is diametrically 
contrary to the purpose for which standards, even with optional 
fields, are developed. Optional fields are included in standards to 
enable firms to add information to a message. Ordinarily, if an 
optional field is used in creating standard messages, those messages 
can still be sent and received among all products that comply with 
the standard. In such cases, the information included in the 
optional field may simply be ignored. Optional fields are never, 
however, intended to enable a firm--;i.e., Microsoft--;to 
subvert the standard and preclude its widespread usage.
    The CCIA explains that ``[w]hile the Kerberos Version 5 
Microsoft uses for their security services is a standard, the way 
they have implemented Kerberos is not a standard and renders it 
nearly inoperable with any other implementation.'' CCIA White 
Paper, supra, at 24.
    Not content with Microsoft's corruption of the Kerberos 
standard, Microsoft has filed for a patent on its proprietary 
version. Consequently, not only will Microsoft products fail to 
interoperate with non-Microsoft products (because of the 
modification), but Microsoft will not allow anyone else to use its 
version unless they purchase a liscense from Microsoft.
    Thus, by polluting industry standards, such as Java and Kerberos 
(among others), Microsoft can further impede the use and development 
of competing middleware. Any calls encrypted with Kerberos sent by 
Microsoft Windows can be read only by other Microsoft Middleware and 
not by Novell's middleware. Similarly, Novell's middleware cannot 
send calls encrypted with Kerberos (the industry standard), because 
Windows will reject them. In contrast to the RPFJ, the remedy 
proposed by the Litigating States addresses the problems created by 
Microsoft's manipulation of industry standards in two complementary 
ways. First, by requiring meaningful disclosures of interface 
information, the Litigating States would effectively impair 
Microsoft's ability to corrupt third party standards 
surreptitiously. Second, the Litigating States' proposal would 
expressly preclude Microsoft from misrepresenting its compliance 
with industry standards or imposing proprietary (i.e., Microsoft-
owned) versions of such standards on the industry. See States' 
Remedy at 20-;21.
    D. The RPFJ Will Encourage Microsoft To Continue To Use Coercive 
Licensing Practices to Exclude Competition As recognized in the 
RPFJ, Microsoft has a long history of imposing coercive contracts 
and conditions on its customers to inhibit their ability to buy or 
sell competing products. See RPFJ, 66 Fed. Reg. at 59,453-;55. 
Once again with myopic vision, the RPFJ ignores the full scope of 
Microsoft's abusive contracts. Specifically, the RPFJ addresses only 
Microsoft's arrangements with intermediary technology vendors like 
OEMs. See id. Microsoft, however, has redirected its muscle at 
direct purchasers of its software. Microsoft, for example, forces 
networking customers to purchase Client Access Licenses or 
``CALs.'' A CAL is merely one example of coercive licenses 
directed at users, rather than intermediaries. In connection with 
Windows 2000, Microsoft began to require customers to purchase a CAL 
whenever the customer uses a device that authenticates (i.e., 
identifies) itself and its relation to other elements of the network 
with Microsoft's Active Directory middleware. In other words, in 
addition to requiring users to purchase a license for using Windows 
2000 on Continued from previous page will not allow anyone else to 
use its version unless they purchase a license from Microsoft.
    server, Microsoft also requires users to purchase enough CALs to 
cover the maximum level of devices that will have concurrent access 
to that server. The beauty of a CAL, from Microsoft's standpoint, is 
that it raises prices for Microsoft software, while at the same time 
raising the costs to users of using non-Microsoft middleware. The 
Gartner Group explains: The most significant pricing increase for 
enterprises using Win2000 will come from Microsoft's licensing 
change requiring CALs for all authenticated users. This is 
considerably broader than Microsoft's previous CAL requirement with 
Windows NT v.4. The most common scenario for increased costs will 
involve users of Microsoft's Exchange using Novell for NOS [Network 
Operating System] services. These users will typically see Win2000 
server and CAL fees increase five to eight times over their current 
server and CAL fees. Previously, users of Exchange were not required 
to Purchase an NT CAL. However, since all versions of Exchange 
require NT authentication [provided by Active Directory] these users 
will be required to purchase Win2000 CALs regardless of whether they 
use another vendor's NOS services. This, in effect, makes the use of 
Microsoft's NOS services free as compared to other NOSs. The 
situation is exacerbated by Microsoft's server logo program 
requirement that certified applications must, at a minimum, support 
Windows 2000 authentication--;a move that increases the number 
of scenarios in which CALs will be required.
    Furthermore, by broadening authentication to include 
applications ``indirectly'' using Win2000 sign-on 
services, uses of products that tap into Microsoft's security APIs 
(e.g., Novell's NDS for NT) must purchase CALs where they were not 
charged before.
    See Win2000 Licensing: Raising Prices, Squeezing Competitors, 
Gartner Group (Feb. 16, 2000) (italics in original) (boldface 
added).
    Microsoft's CAL licensing policy forecloses competition and 
reduces consumer choice, because it forces customers to pay 
Microsoft, even if they prefer to use non-Microsoft

[[Page 28669]]

middleware. For example, if a customer has fifty personal computers 
attached to a network composed of nine Novell servers and one 
Windows XP server, and the customer uses Microsoft's dominant email 
software, ``Exchange'' (or any other software that 
authenticates to Active Directory), then the customer will need to 
buy fifty CALs from Microsoft--;even if the customer would 
prefer to use Novell's eDirectory for all authentication services.
    Why ? Because the customer has no choice: (1) Microsoft bundles 
Active Directory with Windows 2000 and Windows XP; (2) Microsoft has 
technologically prevented Novell's eDirectory from replacing Active 
Directory to provide authentication services for Microsoft products 
like Exchange; and, therefore (3) virtually all network devices 
require ``access'' to Active Directory which must be paid 
for under a Microsoft CAL!
    Further, the CAL policy coerces customers into replacing all 
server software with Microsoft software. Otherwise, the customer 
will be forced to pay a substantial tax to Microsoft simply to be 
able to use a competitor's networking software. In the foregoing 
example, the customer would need to pay for fifty CALs regardless of 
the number of its ten servers that it converts to Windows XP or 
Windows 2000. Because Microsoft loads the bulk of pricing into the 
CALs, rather than into software licenses for its server software, 
the net effect of this strategy is make it prohibitively expensive 
for customers to continue to operate servers with non-Microsoft 
software, such as Novell's NetWare and/or eDirectory, even if they 
would prefer to do so. In many instances, Microsoft's strategy would 
effectively force a customer to pay twice for networking software if 
it had the temerity to rebuff Microsoft by insisting on using a 
competitor's networking middleware, rather than Windows 2000 or 
Windows XP (and Active Directory).
    The significance of CALs in the overall cost to customers is 
shown by Microsoft's own estimated retail prices. Microsoft 
estimates that the Windows 2000 Server license sells at around 
$799.18 This is also the price of twenty CALs. Thus, using 
Microsoft's own estimates, as soon as the customer has more than 
twenty client PCs, the cost of the CALs is greater than the cost of 
the server license itself. Most enterprises will use far more than 
twenty client PCs in a network and the greater the number of client 
PCs, the greater the relative significance of CALs to the customer's 
overall cost. As a result, customers with large networks are 
essentially forced to pay for Microsoft's server software, whether 
or not they prefer that software or even use it. Eventually, 
however, many customers simply cannot afford to pay the tax imposed 
by Microsoft for using even superior networking software offered by 
its competitors.
    The server license and five CALs is shown as costing $999 in 
Windows 2000. See Microsoft Windows 2000 Pricing and Licensing, 
available at http://www.microsoft.com/ Windows2000/server/howtobuy/
pricing/ (visited Jan. 10, 2002). The cost of five CALs is shown 
separately as $199. Thus the server license is around $799 and each 
CAL is around $40. This is consistent with the prices shown for the 
server license and ten CALs ($1,199--;$799 plus 10 x $40), for 
the server license and 25 CALs ($1,799--;$799 plus 25 x $40) and 
for a 20 CAL pack ($799--;around 20 x $40).
    In sum, Microsoft has repeatedly devised coercive licenses that 
raise costs to users of non-Microsoft products. The ability of 
consumers to avoid CALs is ever diminishing as more and more 
applications that authenticate only to Active Directory are 
aggressively promoted by Microsoft. By changing the way it charges 
for CALs in recent versions of Windows, Microsoft assures 
``that it makes more money while making it difficult to cost-
justify the use of alternative vendors'' products.'' 
Win2000 Licensing, Gartner Group, supra. Here again, the RPFJ gives 
Microsoft a mandate to monopolize by limiting one set of coercive 
licensing practices while condoning another.
    E. The RPFJ Would Fail to Protect the Public Interest, Because 
It Fails To Adopt An Enforcement Regime That Discourages Non-
Compliance By Microsoft The RPFJ's enforcement provisions, while 
elaborate and creative, fail to ensure Microsoft's full and timely 
compliance with its obligations. The RPFJ fails to impose meaningful 
time limits on enforcement proceedings, it fails to threaten 
adequate sanctions to deter Microsoft from ignoring its duties, and 
it fails to appoint a Special Master to facilitate enforcement. 
These failings virtually guarantee Microsoft's non-compliance.
    In failing to impose time limits on enforcement review and 
resolution, the RPFJ will allow complaints against Microsoft to 
languish. Under the RPFJ, a complaint would require an investigation 
by the DOJ to be followed, to the extent appropriate, by judicial 
proceedings before this Court. Any enforcement matter before the 
Court would be complex, even with the able assistance of the 
Technical Committee. As those investigations crept along, Microsoft 
would persevere. The history of this action shows that Microsoft 
sees no reason to take a ``time out'' during periods of 
antitrust review. Indeed, Microsoft effectively used the time since 
the entering of the consent decree to complete its annihilation of 
Netscape's threat to its monopoly.
    As in its campaign against Netscape, by the time any sanctions 
under the RPFJ are imposed, challenged conduct will have long since 
taken its toll and Microsoft will have already repositioned its 
monopolistic artillery. Given Microsoft's history of thumbing its 
nose at the antitrust laws, any remedy must include severe penalties 
for non-compliance. Absent powerful deterrents, any final judgment 
in this case will have no more influence over Microsoft than the 
Treaty of 1839 had over Germany when it decided to invade Belgium in 
1914. German Imperial Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg, in 
an August 4, 1915 conversation with Sir Edward Goschen, British 
Ambassador to Germany, characterized the Treaty, which guaranteed 
Belgian neutrality and which had been signed by Germany, as a scrap 
of paper, at the very time that the Imperial German Army had begun 
its invasion of Belgium. Sir E. Goschen, Report to Sir Edward Grey, 
British Foreign Secretary, 1914, available at http://
library.byu.edu/rdh/wwi/1914/ paperscrap.html (visited Jan. 18, 
2002).
    The enforcement provisions proposed by the Litigating States are 
far more likely to disarm Microsoft than the RPFJ. Under the 
proposal of the Litigating States, a Special Master would be 
required to conduct prompt investigations of any complaints and to 
propose resolutions within the short time frame necessary to be 
meaningful in such a fast-moving market. See States' Remedy at 24. 
The proposal of the Litigating States contains strict time limits 
for investigating and resolving any third-party complaints. See id. 
at 26-;27. The Litigating States' enforcement provisions, 
moreover, would impose severe penalties on Microsoft in the event it 
perpetuates its monopolist campaign. See id. at 28-;29.
    III. Legal Standards A. In Evaluating the Proposed Final 
Judgment and the Public Interest, the Court Must Consider 
Microsoft's Status as a Defendant That Has Already Been Found to 
Have Abused its Monopoly Power
    The Tunney Act was intended as a safeguard to ensure that 
antitrust consent decrees were within ``the public 
interest.'' The Act provides procedural requirements for 
publication of proposed consent decrees in the Federal Register and 
provides a sixty day comment period during which any person may file 
written comments to the consent decree. The government is required 
to respond to any filed comments. Tunney Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(d). 
As one commentator has noted, ``[t]hese procedural provisions 
were designed to satisfy two of the three major criticisms of prior 
practice by opening up the process to participation by interested 
third parties and by requiring the government to reveal its 
justifications for settling the case on the terms provided in the 
consent decree.'' Lloyd C. Anderson, United States v. 
Microsoft, Antitrust Consent Decrees, and the Need for A Proper 
Scope of Judicial Review, 65 Antitrust L.J. 1, 9 (Fall 1996).
    The Tunney Act further provides that a district court may only 
approve a proposed consent decree if it is in ``the public 
interest.'' The Act lists the following factors which may be 
considered by a district court: (1) the ``competitive 
impact'' of the decree; (2) provisions for enforcement and 
modification of the decree; (3) the duration of the decree; (4) the 
anticipated effects of alternative remedies; and (5) ``any 
other considerations bearing upon the adequacy of such 
judgment,'' as well as ``the impact of the entry of such 
judgment upon the public generally.'' 15 U.S.C. 16(e).
    Since the Tunney Act was enacted in 1974, courts have used 
varying standards to evaluate consent decrees under the Act based in 
large part on the posture of the case at the time the consent decree 
was entered. See, generally, Anderson, supra. In cases in which the 
consent decree and DoJ complaint were filed simultaneously, and no 
evidence was introduced concerning the allegations in the complaint, 
the court's Tunney Act review was extremely limited. See United 
States v. Microsoft, 159 F.R.D. 318 (Sporkin, J.) (D.DC 1995), rev'd 
56 F.3d 1448 (DCCir. 1995) (``Microsoft I'').19 In cases 
in which

[[Page 28670]]

substantial evidence was adduced at trial before the consent decree 
was entered, the court's ``public interest'' determination 
19 In this instance, Microsoft will no doubt argue that this Court 
has limited authority to review the Proposed Final Judgment based, 
in large part, on the DC Court of Appeals'' decision 
overturning Judge Sporkin's ruling which rejected the proposed 
consent decree entered by DoJ in Microsoft I. Rather than 
undermining the District Court's authority here, Microsoft I 
demonstrates the critical importance of a fact-based review of the 
RPFJ. Although the Court of Appeals rejected Judge Sporkin's 
decision in Microsoft I, its grounds for reversal are inapplicable 
here. Further, the Court of Appeals emphasized in Microsoft I that a 
``court may (1) insist upon correction of ambiguous provisions, 
(2) require adequate implementation provisions, (3) consider injury 
to third parties, and (4) reject decrees that ``make a mockery 
of judicial power.'' Anderson, supra, at 17; Microsoft I, 56 
F.3d 1448, 1461-;62.
    Judge Sporkin's decision to reject the proposed decree in 
Microsoft I was overturned, because his decision had no grounding in 
the record of the case. Rather than consider only the complaint and 
decree (the only record before him), Judge Sporkin improperly based 
his decision on facts alleged in a book about Microsoft. Id. at 
1453. Neither the book, nor the claims asserted in the book, were 
properly before the court, and Judge Sporkin's decision to rely on 
such an extraneous source of information was roundly rejected by the 
Court of Appeals. In reversing Judge Sporkin's decision, the DC 
Court of Appeals'' emphasized that Judge Sporkin's reliance on 
such information amounted to unconstitutional usurpation of the 
Attorney General's role. Id. See also Anderson, supra, at 34. was 
significantly more in-depth based largely on the district court's 
evaluation of the record before it. See, e.g., United States v. 
A.T.&T, 552 F. Supp. 131 (D.DC 1982) (AT&T).20 Here, in 
contrast to Microsoft I, there is a robust evidentiary record that 
must be considered if the Court is even to contemplate accepting or 
modifying, rather than rejecting outright, the RPFJ. Indeed, the 
principle reason that the Court of Appeals remanded this case was to 
assure that the remedy imposed on Microsoft was consistent with the 
facts established at trial. In the absence of a meaningful review of 
the facts of this case (including the judgment against Microsoft), 
and implications of the proposed remedy on the public interest, the 
Court's proper role under the Tunney Act will not be fulfilled. In 
fact, this case requires a far more detailed review under the 
``public interest'' standard than was undertaken by Judge 
Greene in the AT&T case.
    In that case, the Court, as here, was asked to consider the 
propriety of a proposed consent decree issued after trial commenced 
and extensive evidence was presented. Foreshadowing the issue 
squarely before this Court, Judge Greene explained that evaluation 
of a settlement prior to a finding of liability is a different 
analysis than ``fashioning a remedy as it would be upon a 
finding of liability.'' AT&T, 553 F. Supp. 131, 151 
(emphasis added). Judge Greene further stated:
    It does not follow from these principles, however, that courts 
must unquestioningly accept a proffered decree as long as it 
somehow, and however inadequately, deals with the antitrust and 
other public policy problems implicated in the lawsuit. To do so 
would be to revert to the ``rubber stamp'' role which was 
at the crux of the congressional concerns when the Tunney Act became 
law. This consideration is especially potent in these cases for 
several reasons.
    Id. at 151.
    Judge Greene explained, moreover, that the consent decree in 
AT&T required ``more than normal scrutiny'' because of 
the size of AT&T, the complexity of the proposed 20 It is 
important to note that the DC Court of Appeals in Microsoft I 
clearly cites to the AT&T case as the most prominent post-Tunney 
Act case, without ever overruling that case. See Microsoft I, 56 
F.3d at 1458, et. seq.
    decree, the ``potential for substantial private advantage 
at the expense of public interest,'' and the ``potential 
impact of the proposed decree on a vast and crucial sector of the 
economy.'' Id. at 151-;52. Further, Judge Greene noted 
that although ``courts would generally not be able to render 
sound judgments on settlements because they would not be aware of 
the relevant facts . . .,'' that concern was not relevant in 
the AT&T case because the district court ``already heard 
what probably amount[ed] to over ninety percent of the 
parties'' evidence both quantitatively and qualitatively, as 
well as all of their legal arguments.'' Id. at 152.
    Also relevant here, Judge Greene emphasized that greater 
scrutiny was required because of the ``unfortunate'' 
history in the prior AT&T actions and settlement: The 1956 
Western Electric consent decree that identical settlement, and the 
identical parties, are now before the Court. Nor can those events 
simply be dismissed as ancient history, irrelevant to the events of 
1981- 82 These circumstances do not foster a sense of confidence 
that the assessment of the settlement and its implications may be 
left entirely to AT&T and the Department of Justice.
    None of this means, of course, that the Court would be justified 
in simply substituting its views for those of the parties. But it 
does mean that the decree will receive closer scrutiny than that 
which might be appropriate to a decree proposed in a more routine 
case. Id. at 153.
    Based on such concerns, Judge Greene held that the appropriate 
standard of review under the Tunney Act in such cases is to assure, 
as a factual matter, that the decree will protect the public 
interest. He explained: If the decree meets the requirements for an 
antitrust remedy--;that is, if it effectively opens the relevant 
markets to competition and prevents the recurrence of 
anticompetitive activity, all without imposing undue and unnecessary 
burdens upon other aspects of the public interest--;it will be 
approved. If the proposed decree does not meet this standard, the 
Court will follow the practice applied in other Tunney Act cases 
and, as a prerequisite to its approval, it will require 
modifications which would bring the decree within the public 
interest standard as herein defined. AT&T, 553 F. Supp. at 153.
    Judge Greene's reasoning in the AT&T case applies with even 
greater force to the case at hand. Here, as in AT&T, Microsoft 
and DoJ previously entered into a consent decree (Microsoft I) which 
was summarily approved and which, in part, enabled Microsoft to 
engage in the prohibited conduct in violation of the Sherman Act 
which is at issue in this case. Here, as in AT&T, Microsoft and 
DoJ conducted a full trial on the merits. Here, as in AT&T, 
close scrutiny of the decree is imperative, because of the size and 
strength of Microsoft, the complexity of the remedies at issue in 
this case, the clear ``potential for substantial private 
advantage at the expense of public interest,'' and the 
``potential impact of the proposed decree on a vast and crucial 
sector of the economy.'' Id. at 151-;52. Unlike the 
AT&T case, however, here Microsoft has already been adjudged to 
have abused its monopoly power and it is incumbent upon this Court, 
in reviewing the RPFJ, to determine whether Microsoft's confirmed 
antitrust liability is sufficiently addressed to protect the public 
interest.
    In sum, Microsoft, and relief from its pervasive abuse of 
monopoly power, are far too important to allow this proceeding to 
serve merely to ``rubber stamp'' a remedy negotiated 
behind closed doors. To do so, would render the Tunney Act utterly 
meaningless. Equally important: Microsoft has already been found 
liable for violating Section 2 of the Sherman Act. The remedies now 
proposed by DoJ and Microsoft are far less exacting than the 
remedies initially proposed by either Microsoft or DoJ, are far more 
lenient than the original remedies fashioned by the district court, 
and, if adopted would make a ``mockery'' of the legal 
process. See Microsoft I, 159 F.R.D. at 318.
    B.If the Court Does Not Reject the RPFJ Outright, It Should At a 
Minimum Await the Outcome of the Hearing on the Litigating States' 
Proposed Remedies Before Ruling on the Adequacy of the RPFJ For all 
the reasons discussed supra, Novell believes that the RPFJ is so 
blatantly inadequate and contrary to the public interest that it 
should immediately be rejected out of hand. Cf., In re Microsoft 
Corp. Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1332, Slip Op., Motz, D.J. (D.Md. 
Jan. 11, 2002) (rejecting settlement of class action against 
Microsoft in the absence of an factual record sufficient for 
assessment of the public interest). If the Court declines to reject 
the RPFJ based on the Tunney Act comments alone, then the Court must 
undertake a rigorous legal and factual analysis to assess how 
adoption of the RPFJ would affect the public interest.
    Under the terms of the Tunney Act, in making such an analysis, a 
court may:
    (1) take testimony of Government officials or experts or such 
other expert witnesses, upon motion of any party or participant or 
upon its own motion, as the court may deem appropriate;
    (2) appoint a special master and such outside consultants or 
expert witnesses as the court may deem appropriate;
    (3) authorize full or limited participation in proceedings 
before the court by interested

[[Page 28671]]

persons or agencies, including appearance amicus curiae, 
intervention as a party pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil 
Procedure, examination of witnesses or documentary materials, or 
participation in any other manner and extent which serves the public 
interest as the court may deem appropriate;
    (4) review any comments including any objections filed with the 
United States under subsection (d) of this section concerning the 
proposed judgment and the responses of the United States to such 
comments and objections; and
    (5) take such other action in the public interest as the court 
may deem appropriate.
    15 U.S.C. 16(f).
    Because of the impending trial on the Litigating States'' 
proposed remedies, and the fact that Microsoft has chosen to proffer 
the RPFJ as its own remedies proposal in that Litigating 
States'' case, the record developed therein is likely to 
obviate what would otherwise be the clear need for a full 
evidentiary hearing if the court were even contemplating adoption or 
modification the RPFJ. Novell respectfully suggests that, in lieu of 
holding a separate Tunney Act hearing, this Court refrain from 
ruling on the RPFJ until the conclusion of the hearing in the 
Litigating States'' case. In that way, the Court will have the 
opportunity, after a full exposition of the relevant facts, to order 
a single remedy in the public interest.
    IV. Conclusion
    To protect the public interest, antitrust relief must look not 
only backwards at past unlawful conduct, but also forward at 
foreseeable risks. An antitrust remedy must ``unfetter a market 
from anticompetitive conduct,'' Ford Motor Co. v. United 
States, 405 U.S. 562, 577 (1972), and ``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. 
United Shoe Mach. Corp., 391 U.S. 244, 250 (1968); see also United 
States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 577 (1966). The RPFJ fails 
this test. Indeed, the RPFJ even ignores Microsoft's aggressively 
anticompetitive past.
    Microsoft has persistently manipulated interface information to 
cut lines of mooring between the middleware of its competitors and 
its own monopoly operating systems and to repel any incursions onto 
the beachfront of competition. Microsoft moreover, has cynically 
sought to recast its malevolent monopolization as the harmless 
development of ``integrated products'' under the 
``Windows'' name. In spite of this well-documented 
history, the RPFJ replenishes Microsoft's arsenal of technological 
knives and linguistic camouflage and encourages it to develop 
additional anticompetitive weaponry in its assault on the public 
interest.
    Much has been made of the fact that, at the end of the 
negotiations that resulted in the Proposed Final Judgment, it was 
Microsoft's counsel, Charles F. Rule, a former Assistant Attorney 
General for Antitrust in the second Reagan Administration, and 
Charles James, the current head of DoJ's Antitrust Division, who 
hammered out the final provisions of the settlement now before this 
Court. This was the very same Charles Rule who, testifying before 
Congress in 1997, reminded the Senate Judiciary Committee that 
ambiguities in consent decrees are typically resolved against the 
Government (and, assumedly, against the public interest, which the 
Government should represent) and that, in interpreting a decree 
later, the Government cannot fall back on some purported `spirit' on 
`purpose' of the decree to justify an interpretation that is not 
clearly supported by the language.'' Charles F. Rule Testimony, 
supra at 3. If this Court does not act to reject this settlement, 
for Microsoft it will be ``been there, done that;'' for 
the rest of us, it will be ``dij? vu all over again.'' For 
the foregoing reasons, Novell respectfully requests that the Court 
reject the RPFJ as contrary to the public interest.
    Respectfully submitted,
    --;/s/--;
    OF COUNSEL:
    Joseph A. LaSala, Jr.
    Senior Vice President, General Counsel
    NOVELL, INC.
    8 Cambridge Center
    Cambridge, MA 02142
    (617) 914-;8169
    Judith L. Harris (DC Bar No. 190579)
    REED SMITH LLP
    1301 K Street, NW
    Suite 1100 East Tower
    Washington, DC 20005-;3317
    (202) 414-;9276
    Ryan Richards
    Associate General Counsel
    NOVELL, INC. 1800
    South Novell Place
    Provo, Utah 84606
    (801) 861-;7000
    Gary L. Kaplan (DC Bar No. 391616)
    REED SMITH LLP
    435 Sixth Avenue
    Pittsburgh, PA 15219-;1886
    (412) 288-;4268
    Counsel for Novell, Inc.
    Dated: January 28, 2002



MTC-00029524

From: Brian Snider
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 1:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I've read the first half of the Complaint  (5/18/1998), and the 
latest proposed settlement to remedy the monopolistic behavior of 
Microsoft. As a professional in the creative field, I will be 
watching this case with baited breath, hoping to see Microsoft 
brought to a real, long lasting justice.
    Please remedy this matter in a way that seeds new hope for 
competing software to flourish. Forcing Microsoft to re-introduce 
Java into it's OS would be a good start, suspending their exclusive 
relationships with OEM's would go a long way as well. Perhaps 
forcing them to port their Office suite to the Linux OS would be the 
ultimate way to shake things up.
    I'm no lawyer, and even I can see the loopholes of the current 
proposal that the remaining nine states are refusing to sign off on. 
We need something CONCRETE!
    Thank You,
    Brian Snider
    Seattle, WA



MTC-00029525

From: A.C. Ross
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 2:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Grossly Inadequate
    I would like to add my voice to those calling for a rejection of 
the currently proposed DOJ settlement with Microsoft. Microsoft has 
demonstrated time after time both that it is not reluctant to use 
the monopoly power it was found guilty of wielding and that it is 
entirely unrepentant since the decision was handed down.
    I'm a management consultant in the computer software industry 
and have been since the mid 1980s. My jobs in that period often 
included working or negotiating with large and small software 
companies who treated Microsoft's presence as the first major 
marketing issue to address. Always, managers explicitly asked the 
question, ``Can we survive long enough before Microsoft embeds 
software like ours in Windows or ties Windows to it in some way to 
squeeze us out of the market.'' Although some companies may 
have lost their competitions through their own missteps, there are 
others, going as far back as STAC, that competed well and won their 
own court cases, only to be steamrolled by Microsoft's market power.
    Transcripts from the trial show multiple instances of 
Microsoft's outright efforts to illegally divide up markets (the 
conversations over allocating non-Windows platforms to Netscape 
noted by Marc Andreeson) and to tie access to the Windows operating 
system to Draconian restrictions on the marketing decisions of 
hardware platform vendors.
    I don't want to reiterate arguments and proofs that have been 
made in the press. My summary position starts with the fact that 
Microsoft was found guilty in federal court. The terms of the 
agreement are so tenuous and the remedies so weak that I have no 
confidence whatsoever that Microsoft will feel the need to comply 
with the spirit and will sail as close to the letter of the law as 
possible. Its conduct will be entirely unchanged. Indeed, it has 
clearly indicated that it does not agree with the decision, shows no 
remorse for its actions, and is safely positioned to violate laws 
until someone large enough has the resources to take them on.
    Microsoft was found guilty, and the government is responsible 
for setting and enforcing remedies. If you want to get Microsoft's 
attention, you will have to define and enforce remedies that causes 
them to change their behavior. The current remedies merely enforce 
the public perception that a large corporation can buy its way out 
of any legal difficulties. If the monopoly laws are to mean anything 
in the future, you must enforce them, and you must make an example 
of the important role the government plays in ensuring compliance. 
Otherwise, we are not a nation of laws, but a nation for sale to the 
highest bidder.
    A.C. Ross



MTC-00029526

From: [email protected]@inetgw

[[Page 28672]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 2:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am writing to express my concern over the settlement in the 
Microsoft antitrust case.
    I am a professional software engineer with over 12 years of 
experience. During my time in industry, I have seen many promising 
companies and products hindered by Microsoft's monopoly. Microsoft 
has consistently shown a lack of regard for reliability and security 
in their products.
    I do not feel that the proposed settlement goes far enough. I 
encourage you to reconsider the option of splitting Microsoft into 
separate companies. Only then will it be possible for smaller 
companies to compete.
    Sincerely,
    Peter DiMarco
    Staff Software Engineer
    Integrated Flow Systems
    250 Technology Circle
    Scotts Valley, CA 95066



MTC-00029527

From: Jim Macey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 2:09am
Subject: Microsofe Settlement
2603 Louisiana Street
Longview, WA 98632
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I wanted to submit this letter to express my approval of the 
Justice Department's settlement with Microsoft Corporation. I have 
disagreed with the government's case from the beginning, but I see 
this agreement as the best solution for all parties to declare 
victory. Although it is hard to be a real monopoly when you have so 
much competition trying to push their way into more market share 
through the tool of litigation, not to mention a constituency of 
millions of satisfied customers, Microsoft is taking several steps 
to create a more dynamic software environment with this deal. 
Hardware developers will have broader rights to configure Windows 
with software that competes with Microsoft, and will benefit from no 
contract restrictions on future distribution or promotion of Windows 
products. The top 20 computer makers will also receive uniform 
pricing for licensing Windows, to provide further incentives to 
consider alternative software vendors and truly level the playing 
field.
    As these examples prove, this agreement is quite generous and 
actually exceeds some of the government's demands. Microsoft is the 
most dominant software player because they have earned it and 
deserve to continue without further government interference. Hence, 
I ask for your support.
    Sincerely,
    James M. Macey
    [email protected]



MTC-00029528

From: Geoffrey Peck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 2:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 28, 2002
Renata B. Hesse
[email protected]
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    I am writing to you to suggest a possible set of restrictions on 
the future conduct of business by Microsoft Corporation that would 
prevent the company from continuing its aggressive and monopolistic 
business practices in the rapidly developing computer industry. 
While these restrictions may seem draconian, I believe that the 
injury to other parties in the computer software industry has been 
severe, and that Microsoft has used its dominant position not only 
to compete unfairly in the marketplace, but also to stifle 
innovation. I will keep my comments brief for your convenience.
    1. Require full disclosure of all interfaces and software 
elements. It is important that parties other than Microsoft have 
full access to interfaces and internal characteristics of the 
monopoly's software products. To make this effective, I propose that 
Microsoft be required to release full development source code and 
all internal documentation whenever it releases a product, 
regardless whether that is a final product or a pre-release (alpha, 
beta, and release candidate) version. This code shall be made 
available at a reasonable price, not to exceed the end-user price of 
one (1) copy of the software. Microsoft may make this source code 
available under license that restricts the licensee's use of the 
source code so that the licensee may not directly utilize 
significant portions of the code to create products that are 
essentially identical to Microsoft's own products.
    Full, commented source code and complete documentation is the 
only form of full disclosure that will truly enable competitors to 
produce software that fully integrates with Microsoft's monopoly 
operating system and desktop program suites.
    Releasing specifications of interfaces at a point in time does 
not affect Microsoft's ability to arbitrarily change these 
interfaces in ways that make competitive or complementary products 
noncompetitive or non-interoperable. For example, Microsoft's Common 
Internet File System (CIFS) was a specification released by 
Microsoft, but Microsoft has continued to change the messages sent 
between computers so that maintaining a compatible interface such as 
Samba is a difficult job, requiring substantial reverse engineering.
    Another reason that full disclosure is required is that 
Microsoft may choose to release only specific, partial information 
on certain key interfaces. This information would allow a software 
vendor to produce programs that perform arbitrary, specified 
functions. A Microsoft version of a similar program might use a 
``hidden'' interface that produces better performance, or 
Microsoft's knowledge of the internal algorithms that underlie an 
interface might allow it to utilize this supposedly public interface 
in ways that an external developer could not.
    2. Restrict Microsoft's purchase of other technology companies. 
Microsoft often states that its most sincere desire is to innovate. 
Unfortunately, the record shows that most of Microsoft's innovation 
has come in the form of purchasing (or appropriating) technology 
developed by others, applying its exceptional marketing muscle, and 
then updating this acquired technology at an often-painfully slow 
rate once Microsoft has established a comfortable market lead or 
monopoly position. Examples of this behavior include:
    * MS-DOS (acquired by license, Seattle Computer Products)
    * Microsoft Windows (copied from Apple's Macintosh, in turn 
derived from work at SRI and Xerox PARC)
    * Microsoft Windows NT OS (and the newer XP OS) (appropriated 
and then licensed from Digital Equipment Corporation)
    * Microsoft Excel (copied from the original spreadsheet, 
VisiCalc)
    * Microsoft Internet Explorer (copied from Netscape Navigator)
    * Microsoft FrontPage (company acquired)
    * Microsoft PowerPoint (company acquired)
    * Microsoft Visio (company acquired)
    * Microsoft Hotmail (company acquired)
    * Microsoft UltimateTV (company acquired)
    To truly encourage innovation and reward that innovation in the 
market, such acquisitions should be prevented. Microsoft should be 
prohibited from acquiring more than 40% of any other company, public 
or private, either directly or via one or more of its major 
stockholders.
    3. Require Microsoft to support at least one additional viable 
alternative operating system on its desktop applications suite. Many 
users are forced to purchase Microsoft operating systems because 
they need to utilize Microsoft's Office Suite or a subset thereof. 
If offered the choice of running these applications on a different 
operating system such as Linux, many customers would be delighted to 
opt for that choice.
    Microsoft does offer some, but not all, of the Office 
applications on the Apple Macintosh; however, given Apple's small 
market share, the Macintosh Office Suite does not constitute a 
significant fraction of the market. Microsoft should be required to 
release a fully comparable version of its Office Suite products 
(Access, Excel, FrontPage, Outlook, PowerPoint, Publisher, Word, and 
supporting applications such as Photo Editor) on a widely-used Linux 
distribution such as Red Hat. The first Linux version of these 
applications must be made available within 120 days of the 
conclusion of these proceedings, and subsequent versions must be 
released at the same time as or before the Microsoft Windows version 
of these programs. Retail, corporate, and OEM pricing for the Linux 
version of these programs and packages shall not exceed the prices 
for the same programs and packages on Microsoft Windows, and all 
configurations of these programs and packages offered on Microsoft 
Windows must be offered on Linux. Further, these Linux-based 
products must be full and complete ports--;they cannot use a 
Windows emulation

[[Page 28673]]

library and simply sit on top of Linux with poor interoperability 
with other Linux tools.
    4. Compensate past purchasers of Microsoft software for the 
overcharging that was made possible by Microsoft's monopoly and 
tying practices. I believe that direct financial compensation via 
actual monetary payment (no coupons, no rebates on future purchases) 
would be the most equitable solution. If a user registered one or 
more product(s) with Microsoft, those records can be used to make 
payment to the original purchasers of each product and/or upgrade. 
If a user did not register, proof of purchase such as original CD-
ROMS should be accepted. I believe that the amount of compensation 
should be selected so that a substantial fraction (more than 50%) of 
Microsoft's cash on hand is disbursed to consumers. Although these 
four remedies each may sound quite harsh, I believe that Microsoft's 
conduct cannot fundamentally be altered without applying all four 
remedies simultaneously. Ultimately, these remedies will result in 
the resumption of competition and market-based innovation in many 
areas of the computer software industry. Without all four remedies, 
it is quite likely that Microsoft will be able to resume its 
anticompetitive practices by interpreting the ruling in its own 
ways.
    Thank you for your time.
    Geoffrey G. Peck
    San Jose, California
    Mr. Peck is a computer scientist who has been involved since the 
late 1960s in designing and a wide variety of computer software 
ranging from the file system component of operating systems to end-
user applications. He graduated from Harvard College in 1978, and 
obtained his Masters degree in computer science from the University 
of California, Berkeley in 1982. He is currently Chief Technology 
Officer of a Silicon Valley start-up. This letter represents Mr. 
Peck's personal views, and does not necessarily reflect the views of 
his employer.



MTC-00029529

From: Raymond Borys
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/29/02 2:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Raymond Borys
3051 Alexis St.
Portage, IN 46368
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,
    Raymond J. Borys



MTC-00029530

From: Steven Apour
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/29/02 2:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Steven Apour
2640 Melendy Drive, Apt. 3
San Carlos, CA 94070
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,
    Steven H. Apour



MTC-00029531

From: esko
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 3:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a software engineer with 19 years of experience developing 
software for Apple, Windows, DOS, Unix, and Linux. Having studied 
the proposed final judgement it is obvious to me that it is not in 
the public interest. To begin with, there appears to be no provision 
for enforcement.
    Additionally there are so many loopholes in the definitions used 
that even the little that it attempts to do is virtually guaranteed 
to fail. There are many anti-competitive practices that the proposed 
judgement does not address at all.
    For a more detailed critique of the settlement that touches on 
most of the issues I highly recommend checking out Don Kegel's 
summary of the flaws on the internet. (http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
remedy2.html) I agree with each of the points he makes in the essay. 
It is a good outline of many of the most obvious limitations of this 
proposed settlement.
    Microsoft has been allowed to run roughshod over the computer 
industry for more than a decade. It has danced around the terms of 
the ``consent decree'' and completely subverted them. 
There are many examples in the Findings of Fact illustrating an 
almost complete lack of ethics and total disregard for the law.
    Only a very restrictive, well-defined, comprehensive decree with 
a real enforcement mechanism has any hope of accomplishing the goals 
that a remedy decree requires.
    The ongoing actions taken by this company while these 
proceedings take place make it readily apparent to me that Microsoft 
has no intention of following any court order or honoring any 
agreement it signs.
    I strongly urge you to take the necessary steps to accomplish 
the goals defined by the appeals court. If you manage to do so, you 
will help restore the computer industry to the dynamic and creative 
environment I fell in love with so many years ago.
    Sincerely,
    Esko Woudenberg
    391 Montclair Dr. #46
    Big Bear City, CA 92314
    Software Developer



MTC-00029532

From: Ronald Fritz
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/29/02 2:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ronald Fritz
317 Heather Dr.
Carmel, IN 46032
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

[[Page 28674]]

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,
    Ronald E.Fritz



MTC-00029533

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 2:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
    Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt 
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has 
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop; 
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than 
``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors, 
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the 
computer user. This is just another method for states to get free 
money, and a terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of 
computer technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most 
dynamic industry the world has ever seen.
    Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Tracey Cutler
    14480 Oak Place
    Saratoga, CA 95070



MTC-00029534

From: Marge Evans
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 2:21am
Subject: AOL/Time Warner/Netscape Suit
    It is time for the attacks on Microsoft to end. As a consumer, I 
now have and have had ample opportunity to choose browsers, internet 
connectors. The government approved the union of AOL/Time Warner 
making it a very large media monopoly. AOL has a majority of the 
online subscriber business for the internet to boot. Having used the 
Netscape browser years ago I was bombarded with unsolicited e-mail 
as there was no way to easily get it blocked. AOL is a very 
aggressive company. I feel that these suits are NOT creating more 
choice or competition for the industry but rather taking from 
investors, consumers, the right to improved products. All the money 
that has been spent on lawsuits, legal costs, trials has taken away 
from improved products, research, jobs. I feel AOL, Oracle, Netscape 
and the rest of the companies that have banded together against 
Microsoft should better spend their time and their investor's monies 
improving their own products rather than trying to destroy this 
company. It is difficult to believe that any of those companies is 
any less aggressive than Microsoft.
    When it comes to monopolies, the US Government is the biggest 
monopoly of all and has, through its inept and unthinking Federal 
Reserve Bank Policies, with its rate increases, cost hundreds of 
small companies to go bankrupt. This country needs to stop attacking 
companies and get its act together to get the economy headed in an 
upward direction. We are now in the process, because of our 
policies, of letting China take over Global Crossing, thereby giving 
up the global fiber optics business to a foreign country. Do we have 
our heads in the sand?



MTC-00029535

From: Mike Schuh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 2:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings:
    I wish to comment on proposed settlement in U.S. et al v. 
Microsoft. I strongly believe that Microsoft should be penalized for 
their injurious use of their monopoly in desktop operating systems. 
However, I do not think that their proposal to give computers and 
software (theirs, of course) to ``impoverished'' schools 
is acceptable. It would be like allowing a fox, convicted of raiding 
a chicken coop, to stand guard over the coop as punishment... One 
should be cautious of the remedies proposed by those who must 
fulfill those remedies (``please don't throw me in the brier 
patch'' comes quickly to mind, albeit in a slightly different 
context). The basic problem with the proposal is that it helps to 
perpetuate Microsoft's illegal monopolistic practices! In a few 
years, when the schools have to upgrade (because Microsoft will have 
rendered the ``free'' software obsolete), they'll have to 
buy from Microsoft.
    Here's a better idea, and one that I support: http://
www.redhat.com/about/presscenter/2001/press--;usschools.html 
Among other things, the ``retail'' value of Microsoft 
software is, to Microsoft, approximately zero, so the proposal 
really isn't much of a penalty.
    An alternative is for Microsoft to sell off (and forever stay 
out) their applications software, then reimbursing everyone who has 
ever purchased software from them with the proceeds (that is, they 
don't get to keep the proceeds from the sale, that being their 
penalty). Kind of like a giant class action law suit.
    If we don't punish the guilty in a manner that truly is 
punishing, then there is no disincentive for them (or anyone else) 
to go and just repeat their behavior. In fact, Microsoft has already 
done this! Thank you.
    Mike Schuh--;Seattle, Washington USA
    http://www.farmdale.com



MTC-00029536

From: jmetz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 2:23am
Subject: microsoft
    Sirs
    I have only a few thoughts on the matters before the judge. If 
microsoft is in actuallity a monopoly as most of the tech world 
belives and it has manipulated the law government and its access to 
the hardwarre manufacturers there are some very simple solutions 
that might be implemented.
    They need to be punished in a manner that would benefit 
disadvantaged competitors and the general public as well. So here 
might be a method that would serve all the injuried parties starting 
back from 1992 when they virtually drove Geoworks from the office 
and school suite business.
    Geoworks now is under the control of www.breadbox.com had been 
developed as a complete operating suite and sold recently as 
NewDealOffice 2000 is a service system that resides on top of any 
DOS or Win9x NT or linux in a DOSEMU and OS/2 as a cross platform 
suite
    If microsoft were to be forced to release both its win9x as a 
downloadable and its DOS as downloadable in total with the 
associated Knowledgebases and source codes this might enable other 
companies to continue development of those operating systems.
    If they were forced to give away mac systems with the associated 
versions of software to all the schools in need, that would 
partially aid another company that had been harmed greatly.
    If they were to pay for the rehab of older boxes 386 486 and low 
end pentium units with the addition of the software suggested above 
for distribution in the 3rd world of central and south americas this 
would also solve other existing problems. But those are my opinions.



MTC-00029537

From: bill frack
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 2:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
11143 Philadelphia Road
White Marsh, MD 21162
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Dept. of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to you today to express my support of the 
settlement reached with Microsoft. The November settlement 
represents three years of mediation, and given the current state of 
the economy, I believe enacting it is in the best interests of the 
country. I urge you to do so.
    The settlement contains many concessions on the part of 
Microsoft. Microsoft has agreed to disclose the internal interface 
of the Windows system. This information sharing will allow 
developers to create software that is more compatible with the 
Windows system. In addition to this, Microsoft users will also have 
the ability to reconfigure their desktops at their discretion with 
the new design of Windows XP. Obviously, Microsoft has done its 
share to end this litigation process; I trust that the Justice 
Department has the sense to enact the settlement. Thank you for your 
concern regarding this issue.
    Sincerely,
    J. W. Frack



MTC-00029538

From: Lewis Zechmeir
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 2:27am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

[[Page 28675]]

    TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
    I find the proposed Microsoft settlement odiferous. To allow 
them to advance their monopoly and call it punishment is ludicrous. 
The very people who were harmed by their business practices would be 
harmed by the proposed settlement. I feel that any judgment has to 
be made to level the playing field.
    One alternative would be to have Microsoft donate light wave 
fibers to local servers and pay to have it laid into rural areas in 
the various states that are asking for damages. Any company could 
connect or provide service and customers could choose between them.
    This would bring high speed internet into rural areas and bridge 
the digital gap. The affected states would benefit and it would 
stimulate the economy fairly.
    Respectfully,
    Lewis Zechmeir



MTC-00029539

From: Boyd Bronson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/29/02 2:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Boyd Bronson
8915 Somerton Circle
Sandy, UT 84093-;7022
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,
    Boyd Bronson



MTC-00029540

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 2:31am
Subject: Microsoft andti-trust case.
To Renata Hesse, trial attorney,
Antitrust Divison,
U.S. Deptment of Justice:
    No one considered Microsoft a monopoly before it was so 
designated by Judge Penfold Jackson, who was so prejudiced against 
Microsoft that a related decision by him was overruled by the 
appeals court.
    Microsoft's tactics to protect its share of the market are 
common business practice, which is illegal only if performed by a 
monopoly. So it cannot be punished for violating the Sherman 
Antitrust Act, before it was legally a monopoly; or it will become 
an ex post facto case.
    Also, the Sherman Antitrust Act outlaws trusts, or combinations 
of companies, which conspire to restrain trade. Since when has a 
single company, which won a major share of the market because its 
service was so superior to its competitors, been prosecuted like 
Microsoft?
    Microsoft founder Gill Gates is giving billions of dollars for 
worthy causes. By contrast, AOL/Times Warner is lavishing vast sums 
for politicians and slick lawyers to subvert the law for its own 
benefit. They are seeking competitive advantages by their list of 
demands that violate patent laws--;not justice!
    Hopefully U. S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly uses her 
common sense and not be confused by the countless, questionable 
details, dredged up by the anti-Microsoft coalition.
    Mas Odoi



MTC-00029541

From: Patrick O'Connor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 5:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Attached please find Comments of NetAction and Computer 
Professionals for Social Responsibility on the Proposed Final 
Judgment in U.S. v. Microsoft. An additional copy has been provided 
by fax. Please feel free to contact me at 202-;955-;6300 
with any questions or concerns.
    Regards,
    Patrick O'Connor
    Counsel to NetAction and Computer Professionals for Social
    Responsibility



MTC-00029542

From: Mark Horton
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/29/02 2:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mark Horton
690 Fort Washington Ave. #2F
New York, NY 10040
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,
    Mark Horton



MTC-00029543

From: ron
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 2:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ron Hardesty
12024 147th St. Ct. E.
Puyallup, WA 98374
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am in favor of Microsoft and the Department of Justice 
settling the antitrust case. It is time for the federal government, 
the plaintiff states, and Microsoft to get back to the things that 
really matter. There is a multitude of reasons why this case should 
be settled. To begin with, Microsoft has been unfairly singled out 
in this case. Several other high-tech, media conglomerations truly 
are monopolistic. Yet, Microsoft has been the only target of 
antitrust litigation. Additionally, the suit was brought under the 
guise that consumers were being harmed by anticompetitive behavior 
on Microsoft's part. To the contrary, Microsoft helped consumers by 
producing innovative products at reasonable prices. The lawsuit has 
driven up prices of Microsoft software. Consumers will clearly 
benefit from an end to this protracted litigation. The terms of the 
settlement agreement are more than fair. Microsoft has agreed not to 
retaliate against those who promote or distribute software that 
competes with Windows. They also agreed to begin designing Windows 
in such a way so that it is easier for computer manufacturers, 
consumers, and software developers to promote non-Microsoft software 
within Windows. It will be much easier for consumers to change the 
configuration of their computers. This will result in more choices, 
and, hopefully, stronger competition.
    I hope to see this settlement agreement finalized as soon as 
possible. Thank you for reviewing my comments.

[[Page 28676]]

    Sincerely,
    Ron Hardesty
    (253)229-;6186 Cell
    12024 147th St. Ct. E.
    Puyallup, WA. 98374



MTC-00029544

From: Anonymous
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 2:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Introduction
    This document is a sparse skeleton, as the author only 
discovered the ability to file Microsoft final ruling commentary 
about a day ago. The 1/28/02 deadline is now known and the skeleton 
commentary is submitted to meet that deadline, on Email date/time.
    The author asserts this timely skeleton is sufficient, as he is 
claiming US legal mandate in a comment to the US DOJ, carrying 
``coals to Newcastle'' so to speak. However, the author 
will continue to make a more detailed argument with references and 
plans to file that argument as a collateral DOJ complaint in about a 
week, with disclosure to presumptively interested parties Apple 
Computer, American Online, and the other non Judgment participating 
sovereign states. The author presumes the DOJ will disclose that 
complaint to Judgement interested parties. The author stands by this 
skeleton, speculates that further argument may be of benefit in the 
pursuit of justice, plans that further submission within about a 
week, but has major collateral duty and makes no delivery guarantee.
    The major issues, see below, are the Apple QuickTime environment 
change, the ``server side'' functionality, and the 
possible secret Microsoft scheme in iterative maneuvers of an 
unwitting user body into periodic, not one time, computer system 
licensing fees. This document is written from memory but is believed 
to be correct. If nothing shows up in two weeks, 2/11/02, the claim 
of further argument delivery expires.
    The author is not computer ``innocent'', speaks from 
decades of computer operating system development and maintenance 
experience as well as legal awareness. The author has purchased, 
installed, and used Microsoft operating system and tool software. 
The author is neither lawyer nor witness, attributes the entirety of 
the possible factual issues to media sources, is submitting 
Federally protected, US Amendment One petition believed to be true, 
but labeled as speculation and not fact, expects full investigation, 
and may be entirely wrong. This document is not signed, as the 
author is not witness and has collateral awareness of retaliation to 
complaint. However, US Amendment Right of Petition specifies no 
signature mandate.
Claim
    It is possible Microsoft is guilty of bad faith at a minimum, in 
knowing, pre-judgement violation of Final Judgement III. A. 
Prohibited Conduct, ``. . . shall not retaliate . . . .'' 
This retaliation is possibly via the continuing exercise of a scheme 
or artifice to defraud OEM's and clients with continual, anti-
competitive, fraudulent conduct possibly in violation of US Title 
18. It is possible that scheme or artifice is a racketeering 
enterprise run for profit. It is possible there is probable cause 
for formal investigation of these issues within US Title 18 mandate.
Assertion
    Use of the Microsoft Operating System Product 
(``MOSP''), and / or Internet connectivity use of the MOSP 
to other sites or to Microsoft sites, is possibly directly linked to 
the exercise of interstate commerce, interstate wire traffic, and 
causal or facilitated US Mail, thus making US Title 18 mandates 
material.
Assertion
    Client usage of purchased MOSP tools runs under sovereign state 
contract law and regulation, thus possibly defining contract and / 
or property right entitlement(s) covering that MOSP tool exercise. 
An involved sovereign state who may have sovereign state entitlement 
change in progress has a right to a hearing on these possibilities.
    Assertion
    A reasonable person view of MOSP security support, also within 
full sovereign entitlement, is possibly a further, distinct property 
right entitlement and / or contract material issue. Assertion A 
reasonable person view of questionable MOSP operating system 
maintenance changes, security or otherwise, changes that impact or 
eliminate legacy services or that suddenly mandate new interfaces, 
when viewed by that reasonable person in the current 
``operating system world'' and / or history, may involve 
property right entitlement and / or contract breach, on that 
questionable cause.
    Assertion
    An undisclosed change to the MOSP that substantively both 
eliminates a prior OEM function and adds a Microsoft maintenance/
change may be viewed by a reasonable person as an extortionate act. 
One wants the change and is thus forced to give up the function . . 
. to get the change. Alternatively, one installs the change with 
secret OEM function elimination, possibly evolves into substantive 
value in the effect of that change, suddenly discovers the OEM 
function elimination, but no longer can simply ``back up'' 
to the prior maintenance level, because of involvement in MOSP 
change.
Assertion
    It is possible Microsoft made an MOSP maintenance change that, 
in part, knowingly eliminated the ability of a current Apple 
QuickTime product to function. It is possible that change was not 
done for MOSP function enhancement, but was rather done to harm OEM 
Apple, to reduce competitor product QuickTime usage, to enhance 
competing product Microsoft Media Player usage, and to enhance 
Microsoft profit at the expense of client MOSP service and choice. 
It is possible a harmful act of this type may be a contract breach, 
an interstate wire received, cause of breach, and / or a property 
right entitlement denial.



MTC-00029545

From: Anonymous
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 2:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Assertion
    It is possible Microsoft apparent change focus on ``server 
side'' MOSP maintenance enhancement control, as distinct from 
``client side'' control, breaches a reasonable person view 
of the contract rights under MOSP purchase, the sovereign property 
right entitlement(s) associated with that contract, and / or the 
intangible right to honest services for an interstate wire 
transaction.
    As an example, Norton Systemworks on Windows 98 appears to do 
maintenance upgrades on the ``client side'', the user tool 
using Internet in contacting Symantec for current system levels, 
offering a list of changes for user download and install, then 
running that user download and install process.
    However, Microsoft MOSP maintenance from Microsoft support 
itself appears to run ``server side'' system level 
support, not ``client side'' and appears to possibly force 
security changes in web browser configuration. The server side 
browser code possibly determines the needed maintenance by examining 
the client, not the client side code examining the server.
    Microsoft develops both the MOSP client and its own server, has 
the direct choice of client (MOSP) or server (Microsoft server) 
support, and is possibly doing the reverse of Symantec. It is 
possible that server/client choice breaches a reasonable person view 
of rights and / or entitlements, with the author stating he would 
never choose server side support if given a choice.
    It is possible Microsoft in the past and recently made 
``server side'' changes in its Windows maintenance update 
process that forced ``client side'' security changes in 
order to obtain both maintenance support and merely a list of the 
``client side'' system changes possibly needed. Some of 
these changes may be critical security changes.
Assertion
    It is possible Microsoft has a secret scheme or artifice to 
increasingly disregard ``client side'' functionality 
choice, choosing to impose ``server side'' functionality, 
but for no disclosed or apparent MOSP support reason. It is possible 
that increasing, undisclosed, suspicious change effects, installed 
by MOSP necessary bug maintenance practice, is in fact a pattern and 
practice scheme to increasingly foster ``server side'' 
functionality upon an unwitting user body, until ``server 
side'' functionality becomes a mandate, not a choice. At that 
mandate time, it is possible a secret Microsoft plan to now force 
periodic software licensing fees upon the user body now will become 
reality, with the user body, after repeated, subtle, concealed 
change over time, is now dependent on ``server side'' 
functionality, and is unable to drop Microsoft or Windows because of 
business or personal need.
Assertion
    It is possible Microsoft has not in good faith tried to comply 
with the intent of the Proposed Final Judgment and the espoused 
complaint of opposing parties, has not in good faith tried to be 
consistent with reasonable person expectation of MOSP and computer 
tool expectation with Proposed Final Judgement III. A. retaliation 
expectation, but rather is engaging in a secret scheme or artifice 
to continually engage in

[[Page 28677]]

anti-competitive, fraudulent practices in at least three ways:
    One, to ``tailor'' MOSP maintenance changes to reduce 
or eliminate the ability for a possible OEM to offer competing 
product, such as Apple QuickTime, Microsoft thus acting not to 
compete and offer MOST client choice, but to defraud and to 
retaliate.
    Two, to use the secret scheme or artifice to later force 
periodic licensing upon a user body that now requires ``server 
side'' functionality, on evolving business or personal need, 
Microsoft using near-monopoly power to 
secretly--;reverse--;the possible entire history of computer 
usage financing.
    Three, speculating on the future, to use that periodic licensing 
scheme as an anti-competitive mechanism, where a user whose computer 
is old or wears out has minimal choice for competing product, being 
forced to stay with the now necessary ``server side'' 
licensing mechanism because of business or personal need of that 
software. While Microsoft offers presumptively equal software on 
Macintosh and Windows, after Windows periodic licensing becomes 
reality, the pretextual, competing Macintosh versions may become 
obsolete.
    Assertion
    While a vendor certainly has the right to develop and offer 
their own delivery of service, a vendor has no right to use the US 
Mail, interstate wire, or interstate commerce in a pattern and 
practice to deny honest services, to conceal material fact in a 
secret scheme for future profit, to scheme in iterative enticement, 
lure, or extortion of unwitting users into future, periodic 
licensing.
    Rewording, offering a ``server side'', monthly license 
fee tool is certainly legal. Maintaining and extending an operating 
system is certainly legal. But maintenance change patterns that have 
no credible client value, that have a secret Microsoft value, that 
are part of a likely ``setup scheme'' for the user, are 
fraud, in the denial of honest contract and wire services.
    If questionable change A, precedes B, precedes C, . . . into now 
necessary ``server side'' functionality ``P'', a 
functionality that facilitates periodic licensing, then each 
distinct change, absent credible cause, is falsified cause and 
fraudulent effect.
    Using a near-monopoly customer base to impose secret, subtle 
maintenance changes for no credible reason, in denying reasonable 
person expectation of operating system, computer tool, and / or 
competitive product honest services, or using knowingly false MOSP 
maintenance changes to impose Microsoft benefit at the expense of 
reasonable person expectation, is not legal. It is potential fraud 
and potential racketeering.
Assertion
    This is not a single redress against a single Microsoft. It is a 
possible class action issue for the entirety of Microsoft users of 
all tools and all products, for the entire world, for all interstate 
mail, wire, and commerce acts, for all Microsoft support downloads.



MTC-00029546

From: 
[email protected]@in
etgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 2:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am writing to express my disappointment over the settlement 
proposed by the DOJ in US v. Microsoft. As a software engineer, I am 
well aware of the strangle-hold Microsoft holds over the industry, 
and the stifling effect it has on innovation.
    In 1994-;1995 when Netscape and Mosaic were the only 
browsers around, Microsoft started whispering about entering the 
browser market. I was in college at the time (University of 
Pennsylvania) and had seriously considered entering the browser 
market with several of my peers. As soon as rumors of Microsoft 
surfaced, those plans were stopped dead in their tracks. Netscape's 
100% market share didn't discourage us at all. Microsoft's track 
record of stomping out rivals--;dare say I entire 
markets--;using ill-gotten gains is what sent our creative 
energies elsewhere. The ensuing 4-;5 years were full of 
``browser-war'' stories, but the result was a foregone 
conclusion before Microsoft had released a single product.
    The current software landscape is rather bleak. When the bully 
gets to usurp any and all innovative ideas, people eventually stop 
being creative. Motivation is tough to come by when you know that 
the spoils of your labor will eventually be in the war-chest of said 
bully.
    Since the settlement does nothing to fundamentally change this 
landscape, I can not support it. I don't feel that the DOJ has 
represented the public's best interests.... they certainly have not 
done so with mine.
    Blake Mills



MTC-00029547

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft 
ATR,senator--;[email protected]@
inetg...
Date: 1/29/02 2:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mario Rodrigues
1921 North H Street
APT 48
Oxnard
CA 93030
Wednesday, January 23rd, 2001
    To whom it may concern,
    Having read the testimony of the Senate Committee on the 
Judiciary, and the Court's Findings of Fact, I for one am against 
the proposed settlement because it will maintain the status quo. 
This will mean the continued absence of any compelling competition 
for software on the desktop. Any one of a neutral disposition, who 
has read the testimony and the Court's Findings of Fact, can clearly 
see the lack of justice when viewed against this landmark judgment.
    The Supreme Court has explained that a remedies decree in an 
antitrust case must seek to ???unfetter a market from 
anticompetitive conduct,'' Ford Motor Co., 405 U.S. at 577, 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. United Shoe Mach. Corp., 391 U.S. 244, 250 (1968); 
see also United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 577 (1966).
    Where does the proposed settlement, ``terminate the illegal 
monopoly'' and ``deny the defendant the fruits of its 
statutory violation?'' From the Court's Findings of Fact, 
Netscape, Sun, Apple, RealNetworks, IBM, and Intel have all suffered 
lost business because of Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. From 
their standpoint, the proposed settlement must just look like a slap 
on the face. Where does the proposed settlement ``terminate the 
illegal monopoly'' and ``deny the defendant the fruits of 
its statutory violation?'' These two fundamental principles of 
remedy have not been addressed at all. Microsoft's market position 
will not change if this settlement is implemented. Remember what 
happened to AT&T's illegal telephone monopoly, and how that 
break-up brought to the consumer choice, better service, and lower 
costs. If this proposal is accepted, those who buy Microsoft's 
products will continue to pay over the top rates to use them. If 
implemented, the proposed settlement that the DOJ has succumbed to 
will not change the industry for the better, but will continue to 
leave the consumer, government, and business, over a barrel; to 
suffer Microsoft's continued exploitation, whose ill-gotten gains 
(profits) continue to line the pockets of those company officers 
responsible for creating this illegal monopoly. This can only be 
seen as ``payback'' for breaking the law, and sets a 
terrible precedent for future antitrust litigation. Let's hope that 
Judge Kollar-Kotelly has the courage, and the law, to turn payback 
into blowback. Let's remember that well known and often used adage, 
once bitten twice shy. Microsoft has chosen, all too often, to 
stretch forth its hand and eat from the forbidden fruit. It is now 
time that they were punished and expelled from their Eden of milk 
and honey. Microsoft has to be penalized with penalties that bite, 
which go way beyond the kindergarten settlement we have here today. 
This has to be done for two fundamental reasons. First symbolic. 
Microsoft has to be seen to be punished, which has to be 
commensurate in effect to the way it dealt with companies that it 
illegally competed against. This punishment will then draw a line in 
the sand, which for the future will bring to remembrance and serious 
reflection the serious penalties for stepping beyond the law. Second 
for competition. The market has to be given time to normalize to a 
competitive environment. Regulation, not another consent decree, 
will be required until market conditions allow companies of 
substance to hold their own against a convicted monopolist. 
Microsoft should not be left in a position where it is able to 
repeat conduct that an ideologically diverse Court of Appeals 
unanimously found illegal. I am not a lawyer, but I do feel 
confident that this settlement will not meet the requirements of the 
Tunney Act. If by chance, there is a miscarriage of justice, it will 
not only be very sad day for justice, it will also cloud all future 
anti-trust litigation. Because of the courts'' inability to 
punish illegal conduct with justice of equal measure to the crime, 
it will give a green light for more commerce law breaking. The 
saying will be, ``if you want to stay in business act like 
Microsoft,

[[Page 28678]]

if you don't, you'll end up a loser, like Netscape.''
    If US law should fail to meet out the requisite punishment for 
Microsoft, antitrust litigation against Microsoft will continue well 
into the future. AOL filed suit yesterday, the EEC have a case 
pending, half the State Attorneys don't agree with the settlement 
case here, and the judge in the private class action lawsuits ruled 
that settlement anti-competitve. There is no argument against 
Microsoft's guilt, there is plain disagreement as to what that 
punishment should be. In his statement to the Senate Committee on 
the Judiciary, Senator Orrin G. Hatch said, ``The Microsoft 
case - and its ultimate resolution--;present one of the most 
important developments in antitrust law in recent memory. The 
proposed settlement does not justify the Senator's statement.
    Let's remember Proverbs 29:18, ``Where there is no vision, 
the people perish.'' I hope that Judge Kollar-Kottely is 
blessed with the wisdom and vision to ensure that justice meets its 
obligations. Mario Rodrigues



MTC-00029549

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 3:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This country and our economy is highly dependent upon FREE 
Enterprise and talented companies like Microsoft that have created 
so many jobs and technology for our betterment. Microsoft must be 
given the freedom to continue their innovation unhampered by further 
litigation. Let the cry-babies work a little harder and stop hiding 
behind their lawyers.
    We are weary of all this litigation. Enough!
    Sincerely
    Marie L. Odenheimer



MTC-00029551

From: Majewski Harry J Jr SSgt 31CS/SCMFG
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/29/02 3:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I beleive that the current settlement on the books for Microsoft 
allows for the company to continue to abuse its monopolistic 
position on the software market. In order for market fairness to be 
regained, the company should be, at the very least, forced to make 
it's browser separate from its operating system, and to not allow 
the company the use of API's or software libraries that would cause 
another companies competing software to run less efficiently (I.E. 
Netscape Communcator), and be disallowed from using secret API's to 
promote the sale of additional software created by them. I also 
beleive that Microsoft should be forced to compensate for loss of 
revenue to other companies due to faulty software that they 
themselves advocated (I.E. advocated the use of their software in a 
specific situation when a survey was requested by one company or 
another.) This, in effect, would bring Microsoft in line with every 
other major production corporation out there. In the late 80's, 
software was not a critical aspect of our economy/safety, and thus, 
was afforded a different kind of protection under law. 
Unfortunately, times have changed, but the law hasn't; Software 
companies still have almost complete immunity for creating a faulty 
product. Microsoft software is being placed in a higher, and higher 
level of trust every day, as more and more of our lives become 
computerized. This places a responsibility on the software companies 
to create software that is secure to outside attacks.
    If a car maker had a vehicle that was ``fool proof'' 
and was capable of avoiding *ANY* accident that would be that 
vehicle owners fault, that would be great. But, if the same car, 
when involved in an accident caused by someone else, provided no 
security, or protection for the occupant, that auto manufacturer 
would find themselve in a very lengthy court battle, and be 
responsible for injuries to occupants. Microsoft, and other software 
companies do not face such problems, yet create the very same 
situation every day. Their software by itself, does not pose a 
threat, but, they deny responsibility for the actions of others who 
create havoc with their software.
    Thank you.
    SSgt Majewski



MTC-00029552

From: Tom DeChaine
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 3:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Department of Justice District Court Judge
    Microsoft is only ``guilty'' of aggressive marketing; 
what successful company in the US isn't! Our irrational anti-trust 
regulations are predicated on the notion that too much success is 
unhealthy for our economy--;which is totally false. And they are 
used merely as a tool by the envious to devour the very strength in 
our economy. I, and every computer user, is indebted to Microsoft 
for the software they have provided and their broader contribution 
to the advancement of computer technology. Our 
Government--;Federal and States--;must side with Microsoft 
in the legal suits against them. This company is not guilty of a 
legitimate crime (e.g. fraud); it is a positive example of 
Capitalism at work. It is time for our Government to turn back the 
clock and defend Capitalism whenever possible: defend the principles 
upon which this country was based.
    Tom DeChaine
    Penn Valley, Ca.



MTC-00029553

From: R. Todd Reasonover
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 3:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the Justice Department should NOT settle the lawsuit 
with Microsoft. I personally believe that Microsoft should be broken 
into pieces. There is virtually no competition in the OS market, 
browser market, and office suite market to name a few. Microsoft has 
consistently shown that they won't play fair. All in the name of 
innovation; as long as it's Microsoft's way.
    Thank you.
    Todd Reasonover



MTC-00029554

From: Robert Lyle
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/29/02 3:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Lyle
3605 Arlington Oaks Dr.
Mobile, AL 36695-;8707
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. Lyle



MTC-00029555

Marilyn Ayers
2292 Bitterroot Place--;
    Littleton, Colorado 80129
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As an active user of Microsoft software programs since 1989, I 
want to express my views on the Microsoft settlement: Support. 
Complete support. Microsoft has standardized the way we use 
computers.
    They continue to give us deals. They provide us with new 
concepts on how to get the most out of our computers.
    Clearly, the Company wants to put this costly legal action 
behind them and move forward with developing new products. They are 
certainly not getting off easy with the settlement, and their 
compliance is guaranteed thanks to the excessive oversight the 
settlement includes.
    Please accept the terms of the settlement Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Marilyn Ayers



MTC-00029556

45 Gramercy Park N

[[Page 28679]]

New York, NY 10010
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 0530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I support the settlement the Department of Justice and Microsoft 
agreed to several months ago in their three-year-old antitrust 
lawsuit. I think Microsoft has gotten a bad rap because of its 
market dominance, and I believe the case should be concluded without 
more litigation.
    The settlement's terms will allow competitors to better 
integrate their programs into Windows. Disclosing internal 
programming language to competitors is a generous move on 
Microsoft's part, and shows the company's willingness to put the 
situation behind them. Please support the settlement and allow 
Microsoft to concentrate on future business endeavo's. They have led 
the way in technological innovation for two decades now, and should 
be free to continue doing so.



MTC-00029557

Robert L. Kaufman
34 Jade Lane
Cherry Hill, NJ 08002-;1612
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Your strong leadership in working to settle the Microsoft 
antitrust case is certainly in the best interests of America. 
Federal Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson showed his disdain for 
judicial ethics by revealing his biased prejudgment to a member of 
the press in his own judicial chambers long before he issued his 
opinion in the case. Whatever happened to judges hearing all the 
evidence and arguments before deciding the case? Whatever happened 
to judges who aren't ego-induced publicity hounds? Judge Jackson did 
damage well beyond the judicial and legal community though. His 
decision to break up Microsoft into pieces, as though he .saw 
himself as Julius Caesar dividing Gaul, pulled down the whole stock 
market, in my opinion. Technology stocks were badly hurt.
    Fortunately, the Court of Appeals later overturned Judge 
Jackson, and Microsoft and your department have reached a settlement 
that will be good for American business and the American public.
    Microsoft will have to show its cards, its hidden poker hand. It 
will show the industry its internal interface code and server 
protocol code, and license its other codes to companies on a non-
discriminatory basis. It will allow computer makers to sell non-
Microsoft operating systems at the same time they sell Windows, and 
set uniform prices and terms instead of negotiating. This will allow 
the industry greater flexibility. I don't ``know how good this 
will be for Microsoft, although Microsoft has agreed to it to settle 
the case and move on. However, it will be very good for the tech 
industry.
    Thank you again for your support of the settlement. Let's hope 
the new federal judge on the case approves it. I .just had to add my 
voice during the public comment period. This settlement is important 
for America.
    Sincerely,
    Robert L. Kaufman



MTC-00029558

383 Second Ave
Massapequa Park, NY 11762
Phone: 516 799-;8300 -24/7
Fax: 516 799-;8350 -24/7
eMail: [email protected]
Fax:
To: Attorney General John Ashcroft
From: Walter C. Schmidt, CPA
US Department of Justice
Fax: 202-;307-;1454 or 202-;616-;9937
Pages: Two including this cover sheet
Phone:
Date: 01/27/2002 
Re: Microsoft Settlement CC:
See following...
WALTER C. SCHMIOT, CPA.
Massapequa Park, NY 11762 24/7:516.799.8300
Fax: 516.799.8350
eMail: [email protected]
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Fax: 202-;307-;1454- 202-;6169937
--;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



MTC-00029559

4929 Canterwood Drive NW
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    [have personally founded six small businesses, each providing 
software and related services to companies and consumers. Also, I 
have worked for five of America's largest businesses, performing 
turn-around leadership to help restore them to competitive health. I 
know what it means to compete here in America, where 
entrepreneurship and a free market economy have historically been 
protected by our government.
    I think it is a shame that the previous administration punished 
successful entrepreneurship and stifled creativity--;and has 
left your department to bat cleanup. The Microsoft antitrust suit is 
the perfect example of this. I am appalled that the negotiated 
settlement has been rejected by half of the plaintiff 
states--;without even giving it a: trial period and thus letting 
six months of negotiations go to waste. I think before rejection is 
considered, it is necessary to give the settlement a chance.
    It is a disgrace that the settlement should be delayed to give 
Microsoft's opponents a bigger piece of the pie. I think the. 
settlement is fair as it stands. Microsoft has agreed not to enter 
into any contracts that would require a third party to distribute or 
endorse Microsoft products either exclusively or at a fixed 
percentage. Microsoft also plans to design future versions of 
Windows so that the operating system will support non-Microsoft 
software. I believe that these terms are more than reasonable.
    In the long run, I believe the economy and the consumer would 
benefit from a speedy settlement.
    I urge you to give your support to the settlement.
    4929 Canterwood Drive NW II
    Gig Harbor; WA 98332



MTC-00029560

TO:
FROM:
DATE:
??OTAL PAGE (Including Cover Sheet):
Robert She??s
I605 60th Place W
Muki??eo WA 98275
425-;349-;1207
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C, 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft
    The federal case against Microsoft is definitely without 
warrant. The Case is largely p??litical and has been up in the court 
system long enough. I find it appalling to consider the amount of 
taxpayer dollars that have financed this persecution of Microsoft. 
Having sated the above, I believe that the settlement that was 
reached signifies an important resolution of the issue. Throughout 
this process, Microsoft has made many

[[Page 28680]]

compromises. Microsoft agrees under the terms of the, agreement to 
license Windows at the same rate to the larger manufacturers of PCs. 
Further, Microsoft will relax contractual restrictions upon PC 
manufacturers. These reass??ssed relations will definitely change 
the industry.
    But clever people like me who talk loudly in resta??ants, sec 
this as a de??berate ambiguity. A plea for justice in a mechanized 
society. To conclude, the case against Microsoft is unfair, yet the 
settlement should be enacted as soon as possible.
    But is suspense, as Hitchcock state``& in the box. No, 
there isn't room. the ambiguity's put on weight.
    Robert Shelts DVM



MTC-00029561

January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NVY
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The antitrust suit against Microsoft has gone on long enough, 
and I would like to see this whole issue end on a bos??tive note. I 
feel that the settlement that has been reached between Microsoft and 
the Department of Justice is as fair as it is going to get, even 
though the terms go a little far in imposing restrictions and 
obligations on Microsoft.
    What we have had here is the federal government punishing 
success. Microsoft has agreed to terms that extend beyond what was 
at issue in the initial settlement, and have done so ?? order to get 
this over with. They have actually agreed to give their competitors 
code and design information that composes the Windows operating 
system. This enables the competition to produce software and install 
in within Windows, and Microsoft can do nothing about it. Enough is 
enough.
    The settlement is reasonable enough; please approve it as soon 
as possible. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Igor Alexeff



MTC-00029562

JAN-;27-;02 SUN 04:2S PM SMITH 8059676721
January 27, 2002
To: Attorney General John Ashcroft
FAX: 202/307-;1454
From: Mr. & Mrs. James R. Smith
FAX: 805-;957-;6721
Re: Microsoft Settlement
Please see attached letter.
JAN-;27-;02 SUN 04:26 PM SMITH 8059676721
Mr. & Mrs. James R. Smith 340 Princeton Avenue Santa Barbara, CA 
93111
January 25, 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 in the United States of 
America vs. The Microsoft Corporation is fair, and I believe that 
settling this case is in the best interest of the U.S. economy as 
well as the American consumer. It is vital that for us to have our 
best and brightest companies working at full steam in these times of 
economic uncertainty, and continuing this litigation will not 
benefit this nation.
    The settlement is reas??nable; Microsoft will design future 
versions of Windows to be compatible with the products of other 
software companies, the company will also cease any retaliatory 
action against any of its competitors. A three-person technicla 
committee will monitor this settlement to ??sure Microsoft's 
compliance. These terms go above and beyond the original grievances 
of the suit. It is apparent that the parties who feel that the 
settlement does not go far enough are not looking for a solution to 
this case, but rather the perpetuation of their own po??cal motives.
    Please continue you support of this settlement, the work that 
you have done to ensure that there is a place ?? free enterprise in 
the future of this nation has not gone unnoticed. Thank you. 
Sincerely,
    James R. Smith
    Willie Smith



MTC-00029563

Kenway Consultants, Inc.
2715 E Mill Plain Boulevard
Vancouver, WA 98661
(360) 696-;2553
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I have followed the antitrust suit against Microsoft for the 
past three years and feel that it is time this matter was brought to 
a close. Microsoft has been more than fair with regards to the 
settlement and I would like to see the Department of Justice 
finalize it as soon as possible. I am the president of my own 
company and have faithfully used Microsoft products. I have also 
used non-Microsoft software and have had no problems running it 
through the Windows operating system. I understand that one of the 
terms of the settlement is that Microsoft will have to license the 
internal codes to Windows that will allow competitors to design 
software that is compatible to Windows. Obviously there are 
companies who have accomplished this without going to court because 
I use non-Microsoft software and it runs fine.
    I feel that this issue has turned into more of a political issue 
than an economic one. The government has wasted millions of tax 
dollars on this suit when there are more pressing issues at hand. 
This suit has become a way for other companies such as AOL to use 
Microsoft as a stepping-stone. They are taking advantage of what 
Microsoft has done because they were unable to do it themselves.
    I have always been under the impression that this country is one 
who supports free enterprise, yet this suit has not backed that 
philosophy up. There will soon be a chance for the Justice 
Department to finalize the settlement that has been reached and I 
hope they do. Thank-you.
    Sincerely,
    Kenway Mead
    President



MTC-00029564

COVER PAGE
TO:
FAX:
FROM: JERRY&BETTY PURCELL
FAX: 970-;181-;4009
TEL: 970-;484-;2345
PAGE [S] TO FOLLOW
COMMENT:
    Please, I Ask you To Tell The De?? Jostice That I STRONGLY 
Support The MicRoSOFT ?? ??'s heave well enough ALONE



MTC-00029565

STATE OF MICHIGAN
SENATE MAJORITY LEADER
State Capitol
Lansing, Michigan 48913
SENATOR DAN L. DEGROW
(517) 373-;7708
27th District
FAX (517) 373-;1450
TDD (517) 373-;0543
January25,2002
Ms. Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW--;Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
Re: Department of Justice Antitrust Lawsuit Settlement with 
Microsoft
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I write in support of the Department of Justice (DOJ) proposed 
settlement that was ordered by the United States District Court. The 
terms of settlement have been agreed to by Michigan's Attorney 
General.
    It is my understanding that the scope of the settlement 
addresses not only what the United States Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit ruled on but also issues beyond their 
findings. Further, this settlement will be strictly enforced by an 
independent committee that will assure Microsoft complies with the 
judgment.
    The DOJ settlement will resolve the case and allow the industry 
to move forward, thus, providing innovation for the industry and 
greater competition and protection for consumers.
    Sincerely,
    DAN L. DeGROW Senate Majority Leader Michigan State Senate
    DLD
    aj



MTC-00029566

548 Corte Aguacate
Camaril10, CA,,93010
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ash croft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    The Department of Justice and Microsoft leached an agreement in 
November settling the antitrust suit brought against Microsoft. I am 
writing to say that I support this agreement, I feel it is fair and 
reasonable, and has already been approved by nine states. I see no 
need for further federal action, especially while Microsoft is 
negotiating with the remaining states to reach an agreement. 
Although the settlement calls for concessions that make antitrust 
precedent, Microsoft has

[[Page 28681]]

agreed in an effort to end this case sooner rather than later. The 
longer this debacle ensues, the longer that the IT sector will focus 
on litigation, rather than innovation.
    We must allow the industry and the economy to move forward. I 
feel that this settlement provides that vehicle. Thank you for your 
consideration of my opinions.
    Sincerely,
    Harry P. Lee
    cc: Representative Elton Gallegly



MTC-00029567

MARLENE F. PARTYKA
611 Berkshire Lane
Des Plaines, IL 60016-;7520
847-;298-;1594
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    t am taking the time to write you on behalf of myself and 
thousands of other Americans who I know are behind Microsoft. We 
support efforts at seeing the Microsoft Corporation freed of further 
litigation. The past three years have tested Microsoft's ability to 
produce innovative products, and I expect to see a boost to our 
economy once the law suit ends. Microsoft has not hurt the consumer.
    In view of the fact that our nation prides itself on freedom of 
enterprise, I have difficulty, understanding why the government 
initiated this law suit in the first place. We are raised to believe 
that with hard work and innovation, one can achieve any success, but 
obviously, this is not true. The price for success is the fear of 
being criminalized by one's own government. Shameful.
    I feel the settlement, proposed and accepted by the U.S. 
District Court and Microsoft, is the only solution at present to 
salvage the remaining ingenuity Microsoft has brought to this 
country and the world. I certainly hope this 60-day public comment 
period will make a difference in how the case finally ends.
    It is time to let Microsoft off the hook and get them back m the 
field of creating software--;if we take that freedom away from 
them, then what does that say about our country?
    Thank you for your time in this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Marlene F. Partyka
    cc: Representative Henry Hyde



MTC-00029568

20319 82nd Avenue SE
Snohomish, WA 98296
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear General Ashcroft:
    I am writing today to encourage the Department of Justice to 
accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement. The government needs to 
stay out of private business. The United States is the only country 
in the world that destroys its own industry. We have destroyed 
several major companies with our antitrust laws, take a look at 
Eastman Kodak and AT&T before and since government anti-trust 
involvement, if you think my position is not tenable. The government 
has now undertaken an attack on Microsoft. This issue needs to be 
put to rest. The government needs to get out of private business 
affairs and allow business to rise or fall in the marketplace. In 
order to put this issue behind them Microsoft has agreed to many 
terms. They have agreed to release part of the Windows base code to 
their competitors which cost them many years and millions of dollars 
to develop. This is exactly what the government did to Eastman 
Kodak, in the ``public interest'' with their chemical 
formulae and Kodak. once a world leader in their field, is now 
struggling to survive. Where is the public interest in the 
destruction of successful businesses that provide income and 
employment to many people and help the balance of payments? Once 
again, the government is trying to correct a perceived wrong 
(perceived by unsuccessful competitors and their elected 
representatives) at the expense of the innovative and successful. 
Microsoft and the technology industry need to move forward, the only 
way to move forward is to put this issue in the past. Please accept 
the Microsoft antitrust settlement and allow them to get on with the 
development of the best software business m the world.
    Sincerely,



MTC-00029568 0001



MTC-00029569

January 2I, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I would like to express my support of the decision by Microsoft 
and the Department of Justice to settle the antitrust lawsuit that 
has occupied federal court for three full years. Through the 
settlement, Microsoft will pay for its misdeeds by opening parts of 
its code to other software manufacturers so that they may better 
compete with Microsoft Windows. Microsoft will also have to make 
itself subject to the constant scrutiny of a technical committee 
that will oversee the implementation of the various terms of the 
settlement. The settlement addresses the needs and viewpoints of 
both the plaintiffs and Microsoft well.
    Some of Microsoft's opponents would see the suit continue, this 
would be a great mistake. Consumers and the IT industry have already 
suffered too much in the suit. Continuing litigation can only serve 
to further harm consumers. The Justice Department must see that the 
proposed settlement becomes formal as soon as this public comment 
period concludes.
    Sincerely,
    Bob Moore
    7025 116th Avenue SE
    Newcastle, WA 98056
    * Lets get this lowsuit over with II has cln??gged or too longe 
other compp??es Are using this lowsuit to Compete.



MTC-00029570

215 S. Stale Street
Appleton, WI 549l 1
(920) 739-;1021
Fax # (920) 739-;1565
Fax
To: John Ashcroft
From: Jon A G??oves
Fax: 202-;297-;1454 Pages: 2
Phone:
Date: Jan. 27
Re: microsoft Settlement CC: Rep G??ven
One Odana Court,
Madison, WI 53719,
(608) 274-;7744
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Justice Department
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    This letter documents my ,support for the proposed settlement of 
the Microsoft antitrust case, in accordance with the Tunney Act. 
This case has been negotiated for over three years under a court-
appointed mediator, and it is time to implement the settlement.
    There are many terms in the settlement which individually would 
be enough to make sure that competition is increased; the multitude 
of them should be a fantasy for Microsoft's competitors Microsoft 
has sworn to give its competitors access to all necessary Windows 
interface programs so that they can link with and promote their 
software products. In addition, Microsoft has agreed to allow the 
all-new Technical Committee to monitor its progress in complying 
with all provisions.
    This case should be finalized soon. Thank you for your 
consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Jon A. Groves
    CC: Representative Mark Green



MTC-00029572

January27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The Microsoft antitrust case was unnecessary to begin with,, but 
the fact that it has dragged out this long is absolutely ridiculous. 
I do not believe that the push for additional litigation is in the 
interest of justice; I am of the opinion that the remaining 
litigants just want what everybody else wants--;to get into 
Microsoft's wallet. A settlement has been proposed that, while it 
may not be ideal, is acceptable to both Microsoft and the Department 
of Justice. Next week, the courts will determine whether the 
settlement is acceptable. I believe it is in the best interest of 
the consumer to settle now rather than to drag this case on any 
longer.
    Microsoft and the Department of Justice have managed, after half 
a year of ex??ruciatingly complex negotiations, to reach a 
settlement that not only satisfies the concerns of both sides, but 
addresses the issues presented by antitrust laws as well. For 
example, Microsoft has agreed not to enter into any contract that 
would require a third party to distribute Microsoft products at a 
fixed percentage, This would prevent

[[Page 28682]]

Microsoft from shutting its competitors out of the market through 
exclusive contracts. Microsoft has also agreed to disclose source 
code and interfaces integral to the Windows operating system for use 
by its competitors.
    I do not believe that the settlement is in any way deficient. In 
fact, I believe it would be best for the economy and the American 
public to finalize the settlement now. I urge you to take the 
appropriate action.



MTC-00029573

FROM : JOHN-BURKE
PHONE NO. : 13154514195
Jan. 27 2002 07:55PH P1
5773 Innsbruck Road
East Syracuse, NY 13057
Ph. 315-;656-;0081
Ms. Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Anti-Trust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    This letter is to advocate for a swift settlement of the federal 
lawsuit against the Microsoft Corporation (U.S. v. Microsoft)
    I work for a company that relies on technology for its success. 
We service major corporate and manufacturing facilities by building 
and maintaining redundant backup safeguards for their critical 
energy systems. You could say that our business is to keep others in 
business.
    How sad for this already damaged economy when the federal 
government jumps in to assist Microsoft's competitors in trying to 
put one of America's biggest success stories out of business by 
forcing a breakup. When consumers are damaged by monopolistic 
activities, that's anti-trust. When Microsoft beats its competitors 
in the marketplace, that's capitalism.
    I have yet to see a situation where software/Internet consumers 
did not have a choice, and it would appear to me that many of the 
corporate entities screaming for fairness (Oracle, Sun, Apple, AOL/
Time Warner [monopoly- look at my Time Warner cable bill if you want 
to see monopoly./]) are fully prepared to play hardball and are in 
no danger of starving anytime soon. Billion dollar companies are 
tough to view as victims.
    We spent eight years under a President who liked to punish 
business success. Today the President is different, the country is 
different and the world is different. Let's do the right thing and 
help business be successful rather than strike them down when they 
become successful on their own.
    Sincerely,
    Taxpayer



MTC-00029574

Jan 27 02 06:55p
STAMATS
??
DATE
??
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of justice
601 D Street NW, State 12.00
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms, Hess,
    As part of a company that assists educational institutions with 
the development of effective student recruitment, medi?? and 
promotion, and the implementation of institutional enhancement ??es, 
I have a solid grasp on the importation of public image and public 
pressure.
    When ??sseminating a message to the general public through the 
media, one key factor to acknowledge is that perception is rea??y 
Although consumers may or may not have seen the notions of bundling 
by Microsoft as det?? to the??,. ?? after reading the results of the 
proceedings many would feel differently.
    Thanks to the revolutionary developments by such ??ology ??es as 
Microsoft and AOL, we have all or the facts and all sides of the 
story more ??at our fingertips than any generation before us. We are 
able to access information and communicate via ?? the World Wide 
web. Through your online sine ?? we are able to ?? the proposed 
settlement that you face and submit our own personal judgments to 
you based on our own research.
    Upon reviewing this information of the suit and following the 
proceedings for file few years it has progressed, it is my belief 
that this is a reason??ble ??fer for a settlement in: the suit: and 
should be approved.
    Sincerely, ??



MTC-00029575

STAMATS
CON?? INC.
Pat Collins
Judge Kolar Ko??ely
c/o Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530 ??
    Dear Judge Kolar Kottely:
    Late last year the U.S. Department of Justice ??ully reached a 
settlement with the Microsoft Corporation. This settlement is 
corrently under your review for acceptance, and I am writing to 
??ncourage your support for this agreement.
    I work in a compelitive business where my hard work ??as paid 
??. My success depends on the superior quality of my product and my 
ability to sell ??is product to my clients. I have a na??al 
inclination to admire any individual or company that finds success 
by working hard and having a good product. Microsoft is a great 
example of these ideals. Microsoft continues to be an industry 
leader because ?? provides the consumer with superior products and 
excellent service.
    I have never understood why the government seemed determined to 
prose??nte a company that provides a reliable product, creates 
countless jobs, and s??lates both the economy and innovation. By 
bringing this case the government appeared to be m??ent on nothing 
more than g??ining ??procedented control over the technology 
in??ustry.
    Now, over two years since the suit was brought, calmet heads now 
seem to be provailing. The DOJ and Microsoft have fashioned an 
agreement that represents a true compromise. New reports indicate 
that Microsoft will be required to share ??tual prop??rty and must 
guarantee flexibility to comp??ter manufactures that equip their 
products will Microsoft operating systems.
    More importantly though, this settlement represents a vi??tory 
for the ??omy, entreprencurs, and consumers. This settlement moving 
forwa?? will once again open the door of inves??ment and innovation.
    Thank you.
    Pat Collins



MTC-00029576

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2 STATE HOUSE STATION
AUGUSTA. MAINE
04333-;0002
(207) 287-;1400
TTY: (207) 287-;4469
Ken Honey
Chapel Street
F.O. Box 6
Roothbay, ME 04537
Telephone: (207) 633-;5500
Fax: (207) 633-;5092
Renata Hesse
Department of Justice
601 D Strect NW, Suite 1200
Washington. DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    Please accept my support of the proposed settlement between 
United States vs. Microsoft Corporation.
    Rather than beating Microsoft in the free market, AOL and Sun 
and others engaged the Justice Department to do it for them. Their 
true intention has clearly been to deny consumers their market 
choices and instead force them into paying higher prices for lesser 
quality products. Competition is the key, not government intrusion.
    Without competition, the high technology industry would be 
completely insignificant. Microsoft, Sun. AOL, Netscape, and others 
all drive each other to lower prices and better products, all the to 
benefit of consumers.
    The time has come to settle this case. Taking into consideration 
the poor condition of the economy, the last thing we need is 
additional inane litigation.
    Sincerely,
    Ken honey
    State Representative



MTC-00029577

FROM: CA
PHONE NO. : 207 848 3685
Jan. 19 2002 09: 35AM P1
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2 STATE HOUSE STATION
AUGUSTA, MAINE 04333-;0002
(207) 287-;1400
TTY: (207) 287-;4469
Donald P. Berry, Sr.
115 Sca??smont Road
Relmont, ME 04952
Telephone: (207) 342-;5675
Fax: (207) 342-;3045
E-Mail: chema??@northlen??ink.com
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    As a former aducator and current legislator I am writing to 
express my support for the proposed settlement reached by Microsoft, 
the Department of Justice and several of the State. In reviewing the 
points of the settlement I see several benefits perticu??arly for 
educators and our schools. In accapting

[[Page 28683]]

this proposal and ending this costly process for all parties 
involved we also send a message to the American taxpayers that we 
are being responsible. First in holding large companies accountable 
for their actions and secondly in knowing when a point has been 
reached, after which further expenses in non productive.
    I believe that Microsoft has learned, ?? all good companies do, 
that they needed to change some of their business practices and 
policies. Secondly, they have r??ched an agreement that appears to 
be beneficial to many of our nations schools and their students, by 
providing resources that will help train and prepare them for the 
future. This appeals to me because it puts the resources to work, 
rather than a cash settlement that might allow politicians to 
wind??all that would not be as productively distributed.
    I also see it as beneficial to the parties Involved. The point 
has been made to Microsoft, a fair settlement has been negotiated 
and I see no further need for added legal expenses to the government 
or Microsoft. It Is In everyone's beet Interest to move on Thank you 
for consideration of my comments and for all you do.
    Sincerely.
    Donald P. Berry,
    Sr. State Representative
    District 109
    Belmont, Lincolnville, Morrill, Searsmont, Searsport,
    Swanville and Waldo
    Printed on recycled paper



MTC-00029578

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2 STATE HOUSE STATION
AUGUSTA, MAINE 04333-;0002
(207) 287-;1440
TTY: (207) 287-;4469
Stavros J. Mendros
135 Hogan Road
Le??? ME 04240
Telephone: (207) 783-;6475
E-Mail: [email protected]
January 18, 2002
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    As a businessman involved in the computer field I wish to 
express my support for the proposed settlement reached by Microsoft, 
and the Department of Justice. I have reviewed the settlement and 
find many aspects of it to be unique and beneficial to all 
Americans, I have come to realize the critical importance of 
training and ongoing development for our teachers and young people. 
Our communities will benefit by the opportunities provided by these 
future leaders properly trained in the latest technology. This is a 
greater benefit to our soclety and workforce than any other program 
the government could design using a cash penalty assessed on 
Microsoft. I also believe Microsoft has and will benefit from this 
experience. They have learned the need to adjust their policies and 
procedures; there is no a greater needs to further punish them. It 
to also, o time to move on from this long drawn-out legal dispute, 
so the people of this country can see the continued healing their 
our nation needs, we don't need to see more division, but we do need 
to see positive resolution and I believe that is what this 
settlement can Offer.
    Thank you for consideration of my comments.
    Sincerely,
    Stavro?? J. Mendros
    State Representative



MTC-00029579

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2 STATE HOUSE STATION
AUGUSTA. MAINE 04333-;0002
(207) 287-;1400
TTY: (207) 287-;4469
Terrence P. McKenney
14 Cry??tal Lane
Cum??land Center, ME 04021
Telephone: (207) $129-;5472
Rusiness: (207) 773-;8560
Cell phone: 838-;9168
E-Mail:: [email protected]
January 18, 2002
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    As a businessman and legislator I wish to express my support for 
the proposed settlement reached by the court appointed negotiator 
with Microsoft. and the Department of Justice. I have read the 
settlement and find many parts of it to be a win-win option for all 
parties, I gee R as a hotter alternative than e cash fine that will 
disappear into the federal government's coffers. The practical use 
of technology and the training of our youth is the key to our 
future. Our communities will benefit by the opportunities provided 
by these future leaders properly trained in the latest technology. 
This is a greater benefit to our society and workforce than any 
other program the government could design.
    Microsoft has end will benefit from this experience. They as any 
smart and successful business will adjust their policies and 
procedures there is no need to further punish them. or to wreak 
havoc on the public members who have invested their retirement or 
children's college savings in Microsoft stock. It is In all Of our 
interests to resolve this matter and move on in a productive way.
    Thank you for consideration of my comments,
    Sincerely
    Terrence P. McKenney
    State Representative



MTC-00029580

JACK GAMBETTA, CFP
Certified Financial Planner
ICFP Registered Practitioner
Registered Investment Advisor
Registered Representative or
Mutual Service Corporation
Member NASD and SIPC
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft:
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am a financial planner. I have watched the economy go into a 
tailspin because of the lawsuit brought against Microsoft. This 
lawsuit put fear throughout not only the tech industry, but also the 
entire economy itself. We now hear Congress constantly talking about 
ways to bring the economy back, yet hamstrings the one company that 
is the major engine of our economy--;Microsoft. Microsoft bas 
been charged with an antitrust suit, the basis of which is abuse of 
the consumer. Yet, Bill Oates has done nothing more lima help the 
consumer with the innovations he has created. There is a 
standardization now of computer software where there was none before 
More people can use and understand computer programs than before. 
Prices are lower, Microsoft has contributed so much to our 
technological expertise; the faro that the company is now being 
charged with this lawsuit is ridiculous,
    Further, I am appalled that the legal system should be brought 
into what is basically a battle between technological companies, 
First, what do lawyers know about the computer industry? And how can 
these self-same people make decisions affecting the use of it? Tilts 
whole process was a result of Microsoft rivals trying to rein 
Microsoft in through the legal system; however, the legal system is 
not just. just legal, influenced more by politics than any real 
concern over questionable business practices.
    Microsoft has agreed to many terms demanded by the Department of 
Justice that go far beyond the original suit, Microsoft tins agreed 
to design future versions of Windows with a device to, make it 
easier to promote non-Microsoft software; Microsoft has agreed to 
open up to third party developers more of its copyrighted coda to 
aid in development of third party programs; Microsoft has agreed to 
a technical committee to oversee compliance. This is more titan a 
lot of companies would do.
    I urge you to gave your approval to this agreement and allow us 
to move on.
    Sincerely.
    Jack Gambetta, CFP
    email: [email protected]
    WEB.JACKGAMBETTA.COM
    P.O. Box 100,
    One Kent Circle,
    Terrace Park, OH 45174
    Tel/Fax
    (513) 248-;9400 625
Eden Park
    Drive Suite 500,
    Cincinnati, OH 45202-;6005
    (513) 241-;5000



MTC-00029581

FORREST H. MUIRE, JR.
908 PRINCETON MIDLAND, TEXAS 79701-;4159
915-;682-;5087
email, [email protected]
FAX 685-;1091
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20550-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Please accept the proposed settlement of the Microsoft anti-
trust case. As a long-time user of Microsoft products, I see this 
agreement as the most practical solution for competitors to thrive, 
short of a break up that

[[Page 28684]]

would risk consumers losing a quality, stable presence in the 
software industry.
    Seemingly inspired by a lack of monetary support from the last 
administration, this government intervention into the business world 
has been off base from the start. With this deal, Microsoft's market 
position is clearly weakened, so any further litigation would be an 
even more misguided attempt to manipulate the marketplace on behalf 
of the ``consumer.'' Microsoft will allow computer 
manufacturers broad freedoms to configure Windows with the software 
of their choice without preference in future licensing deals and 
will provide competitors with extensive access to its internal code, 
among other agreed measures to expand competition.
    Considering the constant verification by a committee of experts 
to monitor the deal, I ask for you to support for this overly fair 
settlement. The IT industry and the economy will greatly benefit 
from the return of stability to the software marketplace. Thank you 
very much for your support.
    Sincerely,
    Forrest Muire



MTC-00029582

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2 STATE HOURSE STATION
AUGUSTA. MAINE
04333s-;0002
(207) 287-;1400
TTY: (207) 297-;4469
Russell P. Treadwell
Da??cus Road
RR 2. Box 1570
Car??el. ME 04419
Telephone: (207) 848-;5123
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington. DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    I understand we are in a period where you are looking for public 
comment on the proposed settlement with Microsoft. In light of this 
I would like to urge you to accept the proposed terms and resolve 
this mater for the following reasons.
    I believe Microsoft has been significantly and negatively 
impacted by this more than three year suit. True some of their 
practices may have been heavy handed and even detrimental to 
competitors, but those same competitors such as AOL, Sun and Oracle 
have used the weight and resources of the state and federal legal 
system to attack and distract Microsoft. I say it is time to end 
this legal attack, and stop the use of taxpayers monies. Microsoft 
bas agreed to a very reasonable and, fry for the public and our 
schools, a extre??ly generous and beneficial program to compensate 
fox any supposed harm that was done.
    I strongly encourage you to move forward on resolving this 
matter and ending the battle that has consumed so much time and 
resource of the government and associated parties.
    Thank you very much for all your efforts on behalf of the 
American people and for reviewing my comments.
    Best Regards,
    Russell P. Treadwell



MTC-00029583

THE NICHOLS STREET ASSOCIATION
138 NICHOLS STREET
NORWOOD, MA 02062
Loretta Fehm
January 25, 2001
    I am writing to have my thoughts on the proposed settlement 
between Microsoft and the United St Department of Justice entered 
into the record in accordance with the Tunny Acts requirement of 
public Comment on such settlements, I think the settlement plan is a 
good one, and one that reaches the necessary balance between 
antitrust enforcement and the need for as competitive a software 
market as the U.S. economy can have, Consumers benefit from a 
competitive market in ways that the kind of regulations previously 
argued in this case would nullify. Whereas a free and competitive 
market will drive down prices and hasten the pace of innovation, a 
heavily regulated market, or a software market including a carved-up 
Microsoft would stow the pace of innovation and allow companies to 
sit on their hands and let prices gradually rise.
    Consumers deserve the best high tech market available to them, 
and the best high tech market is the one that innovates, The 
innovations of the last decade were primarily responsible for the 
creation of jobs, Investment, and wealth at rates never before 
witnessed In any economy anywhere. The success of the 
``New'' Economy In the i990s was not a boomlet, in my 
view, but a harbinger of things to come In the future, If the 
government will allow consumers and entrepreneurs to successfully 
guide the market toward higher levels of competition and innovation.
    I hope my thoughts can be entered into the record and also hope 
the court sees fit to approve the settlement proposal. It is the 
best way for the economy to start to put. this recession behind it 
and begin to build for the future.
    Sincerely.
    Loretta Fehm



MTC-00029584

January 15, 2002
Judge Kolar Kottely
U.S, Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street. NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Judge Kottely,
    I am writing to express my opinion as a consumer in the case of 
the U.S. Department of Justice and state attorneys general versus 
Microsoft.
    This case has been loitering and squandering our hard-earned tax 
funds for long enough, As a consumer of Microsoft products, I do not 
feel cheated by the company. Even the limited number and size of 
computer stores here In Des Moines, we nave a choice in brands of 
spreadsheets, operating systems, and word processors. When setting 
up Internet access on a new computer, there was always the choice 
between Notscape Navigator or Internet Explorer as a web browser. 
This case came about for the protection of consumers. Yet, we as 
taxpayers are more concerned about spending tax money to pursue this 
case than we ever were about Microsoft being a monop??y Please give 
thoughtful consideration to settling this case quickly.
    Thank you,
    Lore McManus Solo, APR
    Public Relations Director
    Strategic America



MTC-00029585

Judge Kolar Kottely
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Judge Kolar Kottely:
    There is not an American who has not been touched by or seen the 
impact of the slowing national economy. As the chief executive 
officer of a strategic marketing and communications firm, I have 
witnessed first hand what the slowing economy has meant for our 
clients and our employees. Across ??owa, we have seen many of our 
most important employers either close their doors or endure severe 
layoffs in these troubled economic times.
    Almost every decision our government makes right now has a 
direct impact on the health of our national economy, The decision 
whether to accept the Department of Justice's settlement with 
Microsoft is no exception.
    Microso?? is one of the most successful corporations in the 
country. The growth of this company has translated into thousands of 
jobs, new innovation and the creation of still more technology-based 
companies. Unfortunately, as the economy began to inch toward 
recession, the government began its legal wrangling with Microsoft. 
Next came the major decline of technology stocks. The creation of 
new technology based companies and jobs slowed as well.
    Settling the Microsoft case will help give the economy the boost 
it needs toward recovery. Plus, the conditions of the settlement 
were fair for all involved. Under this agreement, Microsoft must 
allow computer makers to remove their software and they will be 
prevented from punishing companies that promole Windows competing 
products. A neutral commission will oversee all elements of the 
settlement.
    I respectfully urge you to accept the Department of Justice's 
settlement with Microsoft.
    Sincerely.
    Michael R. Schreurs
    Chief Executive Officer
    Strategic America



MTC-00029586

PAULA ENLOW
702 Laramie Street
Manhattan, KS 66502
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
U.S. Department of Justice, Anti-trust Division
601 ``D'' Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am writing to express my opinion regarding the Microsoft anti-
trust case

[[Page 28685]]

settlement recently proposed by the Bush administration.
    I believe that if the court wishes to act in the best interests 
of all Americans, it will approve the settlement, end this case and 
allow Microsoft and the American tech industry to move forward 
unencumbered by ongoing litigation. Continuing to pursue this matter 
in court is a waste of precious time and energy and sets a very bad 
precedent for undue government interference in private business. 
Even under the terms of the settlement, Microsoft will be operating 
under a level of scrutiny that I feel is unnecessary given the facts 
of the case. However, I believe that the Bush settlement offers our 
best hope for moving onward and upward, and I urge the court to 
accept that settlement.
    Best regards,
    Paula Enlow



MTC-00029587

TIM HOLLOWAY
600 N. 12TH STREET
INDEPENDENCE, KS 67301
January 21. 2002
Judge Kolar Kottely
Attention: Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
60t D Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Judge Kolar Kottely,
    I've seen firsthand the blows the economy has been dealt in the 
last year. As an aeronautical technician, I have seen many in our 
industry lose their jobs due to cutbacks resulting from the 
precarious state of the economy.
    The economy is soft. In addition to layoffs, the public has also 
seen a decrease in their investment portfolios. The public and our 
economy need to be reassured. Approving the current Microsoft 
settlement proposal is a step toward that reassurance. That 
assurance will restore investor's faith, providing cash flow for 
innovation and a demand for employment in one of the driving sectors 
of our economy--;high tech. The boom of the 90's and even 2000 
was driven by the health of the technology sector. I believe we can 
help turn our economy around if we help the tech industry get back 
on its feet. In my opinion, settling the case against Microsoft is 
the first step in that direction.
    I appeal to you and your wisdom to support settlement of the 
suit, allowing America's economy to rebound at this time when we all 
could use some encouragement.
    Sincerely,
    Tim Holloway



MTC-00029588

January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
Department of justice Antitrust Division 60I D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    Last Er??day the drop in the Dew and NASDAQ were the largest 
since just after the attacks of September 11th The catalysts were 
cautious forecasts from two technology stock market ??ants IBM and 
Microsoft.
    This sector has see a great deal of change and turmoil over the 
past several years on both .sides of the pendulum- sky level highs 
and rock bottom lows. Many peaks and valleys have stemmed from the 
Microsoft antitrust case Just prior to the case, and even for so. me 
time into it, many would argue that loch stocks were infla??ed. It 
was the belief of several financial analysts that the valleys 
ca??sed by the case were necessary to deliver a reality check to 
??ch investors. All of this may in fact be trite.. Today, however, 
is a different day, a different time, and our nation's economy is 
facing very different challenges.
    Disheartening news continues to surface in the Wall Street 
Journal during this time of economic downfall--;airline 
difficulty, telecommunication battles, and the technology industry's 
downturn. Stories like the one on Friday take the market on another 
sharp decline taking the Dow down 78 points and the Nasdaq down 55.
    As part of the investment and insurance sector, these are issues 
that bit very close to home both for my clients and myself. With the 
obvious effects this case has had on the market, I believe k is 
prudent during this time of economic instability to settle this 
case.
    Thank You,
    Brian Hewitt
    President
    Group Benefits, Ltd



MTC-00029589

Thomas & Loft Stambaugh
8501 Bayview Drive
Wildwood Crests NJ 08260
(609) 522-;2754
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am writing you to inform you of my opinion in regards to the 
Microsoft settlement issue. I support the settlement that was 
reached in November. This settlement will end three years of costly 
litigation and will give our economy the boost it needs. Please 
support this settlement so Microsoft can get back to business.
    This settlement contains many provisions that will benefit the 
technology industry and companies attempting to compete with 
Microsoft. Under this agreement, Microsoft has agreed to grant 
computer makers broad new rights to configure Windows to promote 
non-Microsoft software programs that compete with programs included 
within Windows. Microsoft has also agreed to share more information 
with other companies, such as various internal interfaces within 
Windows and any protocols implemented in Windows. Microsoft is more 
than willing to carry, out all these provisions if it delivers a 
resolution to this dispute.
    Again, I urge you to support this settlement so our resources 
can be funneled into more important issues. Thank you for your 
support.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas & Lori Stambaugh



MTC-00029590

DOROTHY GRATION
1004 FEARRINGTON POST
PITTSBORO, NC 27312
FAX: 919-;542-;3090
PHONE: 919-;542-;1963
FAX TRANSMISSION SHEET
TO:
FAX:
FROM: Dorothy Gration
DATE:
# PAGES (including cover sheet):
MESSAGE:
1004 Fearrington Post Pittsboro, NC 27312
January 16, 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 gratitude that this whole mess 
involving Microsoft and the federal government looks as though it 
may finally be coming to an end. I have never agreed with the 
federal government's pursuit of Microsoft and have long thought of 
it as a waste of taxpayer money, as well as an attempt to sully the 
reputation of someone who has lived the American dream. That being 
said, this settlement offers an opportunity for both parties to walk 
away satisfied and should be accepted/implemented as soon as 
possible. The settlement agreement contains provisions that provide 
for increased competition, the fostering of innovation and greater 
accountability. The highlight of this agreement is Microsoft's 
agreement to share its most valued intellectual property in order to 
advance the industry.
    This is a settlement that is three years too late and I strongly 
urge that it is implemented as soon as possible. Thank you for your 
efforts in Washington.
    Sincerely,
    Dorothy Gration



MTC-00029591

January 26, 2002
The Honorable Colleen Kollar-Kotally
U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
c/o: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally:
    I write to express my concerns about the proposed settlement of 
the Microsoft cases. As the executive director of business/trade 
association, I consider myself to be very pro-business and generally 
supportive of free enterprise and open competition. However, in 
order for the free enterprise system to properly work, there must be 
an opportunity for businesses to actually compete against each 
other! I respect Microsoft for what they have been able to 
accomplish, but I believe Microsoft has gone too far in some of its 
practices. As a result, a competitive market in their sector no 
longer exists, and businesses and consumers are hindered and 
frustrated. I understand that a settlement has been proposed that 
the Department of Justice has found acceptable. I further understand 
that various attorney generals have also found the proposed 
settlement acceptable. The Attorney General of the Stare of Utah is 
not one of them. I support his position and

[[Page 28686]]

believe that the term, of the settlement are too lenient on 
Microsoft. Adoption of the proposed settlement would do nothing but 
delay the imposition of reasonable sanctions, prohibitions, and 
conditions on Microsoft until the next government action is taken, 
if any. In the meantime, Microsoft would essentially walk away with 
a hand-slap and the ability to continue its anticompetitive 
behavior. This could also set a precedence that would allow other 
businesses to take similar control of a market, because they know 
that they could get away with only lenient punishment, if'' 
any.
    I ask the court to conduct hearings to determine an appropriate 
remedy that will reasonably penalize Microsoft for past actions and 
prevent future violations of antitrust laws. Such an action will 
only be in the best interest of all businesses and consumers.
    Sincerely.
    Ann Gambro, executive director
    Utah Hotel & Lodging Association
    cc. The Honorable Mark Shurtleff. Utah Attorney General Jonathon 
Jaffe, The MWW Group



MTC-00029592

January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N W
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to your office because I support Microsoft and its 
desire to settle the antitrust lawsuit that the government brought 
against them. The case has proven to be very lengthy, and I feel 
that if the government's case were solid, they would have been able 
to prove it by now. In the meantime, Microsoft's business has been 
adversely affected.
    The settlement proposed several months ago offers Microsoft's 
competitors an unparalleled opportunity for market growth. Microsoft 
is boldly agreeing to broad changes, between disclosing Windows 
program codes it developed to other companies, as well as enabling 
computer users and manufacturers to remove Internet Explorer and 
other Windows-based programs from their PCs.
    Most importantly, the settlement does not seek the breakup of 
Microsoft. The company clearly wants to put this dispute behind 
them. I hope you agree and will settle the case.
    Sincerely,
    Nadine Hearth
    3426 Whitnor Court
    Sacramento, CA 95821
    Telephone: 916-;483-;7723



MTC-00029593

FAX COVER SHEET
Herbert L. Stevenson
602 Fifth Street #1003
Kirkland, WA 98033
Tex 425 828 8575
Fax 425 889 0659
SENO TO Company name Depf. Of Justice From Herhert L. Stevenson
Attention Ms. Renata B. Hesse Ds?? 1--;27--;62
Office location Office location
Fax number Phone number
(202) 301-;145?? (425) 828--;8575
COMMENTS
    The Microsoft proposed settlement seems more than fair. The 
#35 million spent to punish Mirosoft is an excessive amount of 
taxpayer money; especially since the company has done so much for 
the U.S. Economy



MTC-00029594

January26,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I support Microsoft and its desire to settle the antitrust 
lawsuit that the government brought against them, I believe it is in 
the best interests of our country and the economy. This lawsuit has 
brought untold damage to the economy and it was one of the factors 
leading to the recession. I am sure you are aware that Microsoft is 
a leader in its field and spawned many opportunities for other 
companies. Our country is presently the leader in the computer 
field. Don't prolong this any more and allow for the possibility for 
other countries to take the initiative away from our country. It 
potentially has security impacts that can only be measured in future 
developments. I hate to use an old cliche but as Microsoft's 
business goes so goes America's lead in this field. Don't delay the 
settlement.
    As a graduate of the University of California in electrical and 
electronic business, I believe that I have an inside view of the 
problem. While Microsoft is a fierce competitor on one hand, they 
still allow many opportunities for others to enter and succeed in 
the business. Further delay in this suit will only cause further 
erosion of these opportunities. Believe me there are many legitimate 
actions that Microsoft can exercise that will decrease these 
opportunities. Like any good management plan, i1 must include 
protection of the company and its stockholders.
    The settlement proposed should be grabbed and taken to the bank.
    The most important aspect of the proposal is that it will not 
break-up Microsoft. I hope you agree and settle this case now.
    Sincerely,
    Richard Hearth
    3426 Whitnor Court
    Sacramento, CA 95821
    Telephone: 916-;483-;7723



MTC-00029595

January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The Department of Justice's decision to settle the Microsoft 
antitrust case is reasonable and should be supported. The case has 
dragged on for long enough, and has had a very detrimental impact on 
the tech industry as well as our economy. Further litigation might 
be good for the litigators of the county, but will do little else 
other than act to further slow down an already slow business 
environment.
    The terms of the settlement agreement are fair. With the 
assistance of a mediator, the parties engaged in extensive 
negotiations. As a result, the remedies provided by the settlement 
agreement are well thought out and provide adequate solutions to the 
complaints lodged by the plaintiffs. Upon the approval of the 
settlement agreement, Microsoft will change many of its business 
practices in an effort to restore fair competition to the software 
world. Microsoft has agreed not to enter into any contracts that 
would require third parties to exclusively promote or distribute 
Windows. They also agreed not to take any retaliatory action against 
those who distribute software that competes with Windows.
    I see no need for protracted litigation in this case, especially 
in light of what Microsoft is willing to do to resolve the case.
    Thank you for working toward a resolution of this case. It is 
time to move on.
    Sincerely, ??
    Glen A. Phillips



MTC-00029596

JACQUELYN R. REESER
5827 Hollyhock Drive
Lakeland, FL 33813
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    With the pending results of the Microsoft settlement, I am 
pleased with the outcome. This agreement should reestablish 
Microsoft on one main issue...business development. As a self-
employed person I know that your reputation can make or break you. 
The fact that Microsoft extended restrictions and obligations to 
products and technologies that were not found to be unlawful by the 
Court of Appeals, convinced me that they are more interested in new 
growth and development of their company.
    Microsoft will now share technology information with its 
competitors that will allow them to place their own products on 
Microsoft's operating system. Additionally, Microsoft will use a 
uniform pricing list when licensing Windows out to the twenty, 
largest computer companies in the nation. I give my full support to 
Microsoft's settlement and wish them the best.
    Sincerely, ??
    Jacquelyn R. Reeser



MTC-00029597

J. R. Mitchell
10315 159th Avenue SE
Snohomish, WA 98290
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I think the Microsoft antitrust case was ridiculous to begin 
with; it was all a matter of Microsoft's bitter competitors trying 
to retaliate against Microsoft's success and

[[Page 28687]]

innovation. As part of free enterprise, their competitors had die 
opportunity to be just as successful as Microsoft- However, they 
just weren't as smart and didn't create such exceptional products. 
That's certainly no fault of Microsoft's. I use Microsoft's products 
ever3: day in my job as a Computer Specialist. I could give you 
several reasons why I prefer Microsoft's products to anyone else's.
    Microsoft is conceding a great deal in this settlement. It is 
more than fair to their competitors, if not giving them an unfair 
advantage that they don't deserve. Microsoft is giving away their 
technology to their competitors and has agreed not to retaliate 
against software or hardware developers that come up with competing 
products. They've also agreed to make their Windows software more 
cross-platform compatible so that users and OEMs can easily 
configure Windows with other software.
    Please accept this settlement for the good of the country. 
Microsoft is not harming consumers and this settlement 
unquestionably does not harm their competitors. Please help put a 
long-awaited end to this lawsuit.
    Sincerely, ??
    Jimmy R. Mitchell



MTC-00029598

JOHN EBERT
5910 PROVMENOR GOUNTRY GIUB DRIVE
GHARLOTTE, NORTH GAROLINA ??
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    The current status of the American government's case against 
Microsoft Corporation concerns American citizens like me. It 
threatens the principles of free enterprise in our country. 
Microsoft has been targeted because of its overwhelming success and 
innovation. Other companies have been saddled with government 
oversight for the opposite reason. The American people axe happiest 
when businesses are allowed to do what they do best without outside 
influence. Government interference is rarely a solution. Continued 
action by the government against Microsoft will likely have negative 
effects on the American consumer. This is no time for that. 
Microsoft has attained its position in industry because it is 
innovative, not predatory. Microsoft has created jobs without 
political interference. It is an economic engine without rival.
    The settlement at hand is fair and just. It should be embraced 
so that we an all see Microsoft get back into the business of 
changing people's lives through innovative software technology. Our 
country desperately needs engines like Microsoft to bee running at 
full capacity again. Please consider accepting the present 
settlement. Everyone will receive considerable benefit. Thank you in 
advance for your attention to this matter.
    Sincerely yours,
    John Ebert



MTC-00029599

OUTGOING COMMUNICATION
Raytheon Missile Systems Company
P.O. Box 11337 (Bldg: MO2)
Tucson, Arizona (USA) 85734-;1337
Raytheon Missile Systems Company
1511 E. Hermans Road
    Tucson, Arizona (USA) 85706
TO: RENATA B. HESSE NO. OF PAGES: 7 (INCLUDES COVER SHE??
TELEPHONE:
FAX: 202-;307-;1454 DATE: 27 JAN 2002 
202-;616-;9937
FROM: KENNETH J. HENDRICKSON VOICE TELEPHONE: (520) 7943853
E-MAIL ADDRESS: 
Kenneth--;J--;[email protected].
com
ALTERNATE (520) 794-;0603 FAX: (520) 794-;4860
FAX NUMBERS: (520) 794-;9087
CC:
    COMMENTS ON PROPOSED MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
Date: 27 January 2002
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
From: Kenneth J. Hendrickson
2747 W. Anklam Rd., Apt E.
Tucson, AZ 85745-;3705
Dear Renata,
    Executive Summary:
    I strongly urge the Department of Justice (DoJ) and the Court to 
modify the Proposed Final Judgment (PFJ) in order to achieve an 
effective remedy against a continuing Microsoft monopoly, and the 
harm to consumers that will inevitably continue to result.
    The modifications I recommend are:
    1 Microsoft must be required to publish COMPLETE and ACCURATE 
documentation for all Application Programming Interfaces (APIs), 
protocols, and file formats, for *ALL* Microsoft products. This 
should include a requirement to publish full and complete source 
code. However, as the source is likely to be very difficult to 
understand, Microsoft must also be required to fund an independent 
documentation effort to study the source code and completely and 
accurately document it. Such documentation and source code must be 
made available AT NO CHARGE to anybody who wants it, via an Internet 
download. In addition, Microsoft must NOT be allowed to require a 
Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) in order to obtain this important 
information.
    2 Security considerations must NOT be an excuse for continuing 
the harmful practice of closed, hidden, and/or undocumented APIs, 
protocols, and file formats. All algorithms, APIs, protocols, and 
file formats, must be COMPLETELY and ACCURATELY documented, 
*ESPECIALLY* when those algorithms, APIs, protocols, and file 
formats are needed for security and authentication. Sections III.J1 
and III.J2 should be entirely stricken from the PFJ.
    3 Microsoft must not be allowed to use its patents offensively. 
A patent is a government granted monopoly. As Microsoft already has 
a monopoly (even without government granted patents), and has been 
convicted of illegally ABUSING that monopoly, the government should 
not be in the business of granting Microsoft more monopoly power 
with which to abuse its competitors. The PFJ should be amended to 
forbid Microsoft from using its patents offensively. Before 
preparing my comments, I read the following documents in their 
entirety:
    1 Original Complaint
    http://www.USDoJ.gov/atr/cases/f1700/1763.htm
    2 Findings of Fact
    http://www.USDoJ.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm
    3 Stipulation and Revised Proposed Final Judgment
    http://www.USDoJ.gov/atr/cases/f9400/9495.htm
    4 State's Proposed Final Judgment
    http://www.NAAG.org/features/microsoft/ms-
remedy--;filing.pdf
    5 Competitive Impact Statement
    http://www.USDoJ.gov/atr/cases/f9500/9549.htm
    Justification for my Recommended Modifications:
    Full Disclosure of Algorithms, APIs, Protocols, and File 
Formats:
    I was very heartened to note that the PFJ would require that 
Microsoft must publish details of its APIs (section III.D. and 
others). However, as published, this provision will be largely 
ineffective, because it does not include Free Software and Open 
Software development efforts.
    Microsoft's own lawyers indicated in 1999 that Microsoft views 
Linux and the GNU GPL license as its greatest threat.
    http://www.OReillyNet.com/pub/a/mediakit/linux.html
    Microsoft produced a white paper on the GNU GPL license, in an 
effort to dissuade companies from trying and/or using Linux.
    http://www.Microsoft.com/business/downloads/licensing/
Gp1--;faq.doc
    Although Linux and the Free Software movement are not yet a true 
competitor to Microsoft (as stated in the Findings of Fact), Linux 
offers the best hope for a future competitor to Microsoft. In light 
of this, the DoJ and the Court should tailor the PFJ such that it 
does not lock out Free Software and Open Software developers from 
the fruits of the PFJ.
    Free Software and Open Software developers must be granted 
access to COMPLETE and ACCURATE documentation on *ALL* algorithms, 
APIs, protocols, and file formats for *ALL* Microsoft products, 
without any cost, and without any nondisclosure agreement (NDA) 
requirements.
    The most complete and accurate documentation is the actual 
source code, and so that should be made available. The source code, 
however, is not enough. It is likely that the source code will be 
very difficult to understand; therefore Microsoft must also be 
required to fund an independent documentation effort to study the 
source code and completely and accurately document it. Such 
documentation and source code must be made available at no charge to 
anybody who wants it, via an Internet download, without any 
requirement for an NDA.
    Without this extremely important provision, the most important 
potential

[[Page 28688]]

competitor to Microsoft's monopoly will not be able to compete. In 
addition, without this important provision, Microsoft will be able 
to *CONTINUE* using closed and secret APIs, Protocols, and File 
Formats to extend, enhance, and broaden their existing monopoly. It 
is absolutely necessary that the PFJ be amended to require that 
Microsoft COMPLETELY and ACCURATELY document *ALL* of their 
algorithms, APIs, protocols, and file formats, and provide this 
information at no charge and without NDA requirements to everybody, 
via a free Internet download.
    Security:
    The security technique espoused in the PFJ is ``security 
through obscurity''. The idea is that if nobody knows how 
authentication or encryption is accomplished, they will not be able 
to bypass the authentication routines or break the encryption. There 
is a significant problem with this idea (and thus with the PFJ): IT 
IS FALSE! It is widely known and accepted within the security 
community that ``security through obscurity'' is no 
security at all.
    SECURITY THROUGH OBSCURITY IS NO SECURITY AT ALL.
    The following papers detail why ``security through 
obscurity'' is no security at all:
    http://Slashdot.org/features/980720/0819202.shtml
    http://www.VnuNet.com/Analysis/1126488
    http://www.Wide0pen.com/print/101.html
    http://www.NightfallSecurity.com/whitepapers/obscurityeu.html
    http://www.Albion.com/security/intro-8.html
    http://www.eCommerceTimes.com/perl/printer/11060/
    http://Adjacency.org/essays/securitythroughobscurity.html
    http://www.Treachery.net/jdyson/toorcon2001/
    Many more examples exist; they can be found with a Google 
search.
    http://www.Google.com/
search?hl=en&q=%22security+through+obscurity%22&
btnG=Google+
    Search
    This is perhaps the most important comment I am making, so I 
will repeat this important point:
    SECURITY THROUGH OBSCURITY IS NO SECURITY AT ALL.
    Bruce Schneier and Adam Shostack, two of the world's foremost 
experts in the area of computer and network security, have given a 
list of recommendations for Microsoft to follow in order to achieve 
more secure products, after the recent announcement by Bill Gates 
that Microsoft will henceforth be concentrating on security.
    http://www.SecurityFocus.com/news/315
    IT WILL BE NOTED THAT NOWHERE IN THIS LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS IS 
THERE ANY NOTION THAT ANYTHING SHOULD BE KEPT SECRET. Instead, the 
recommendations from Messrs Schneier and Shostack encourage complete 
openness, full and accurate documentation, and a waiting period 
before Microsoft's proposed protocols and encryption methods are 
implemented. This is in order that the security community may 
examine Microsoft's proposed protocols and encryption methods and 
algorithms in order to find weaknesses, and repair those weaknesses, 
*before* they are implemented and insecure systems are built and 
fielded.
    Messrs Schneier and Shostack also encourage Microsoft to publish 
its entire source code, even though they have no hope that Microsoft 
will do this. The source code should be published so that the 
security community can examine Microsoft's *implementations* for 
flaws and weaknesses, and suggest remedies for those flaws and 
weaknesses. The most well designed security protocols and encryption 
algorithms can be made worthless by poor implementation. The only 
way to check the implementation is to have access to the source 
code.
    It is in the best interests of all those who must use Microsoft 
products, and all those who use computers on networks that include 
Microsoft products (which includes the entire Internet), that Messrs 
Schneier's and Shostack's recommendations are adopted by Microsoft. 
Paradoxically, it is also in Microsoft's best interests to adopt 
*ALL* of Messrs Schneier's and Shostack's recommendations!!
    If Microsoft is forced to COMPLETELY and ACCURATELY document 
*ALL* algorithms, APIs, protocols, and file formats--;without 
restriction--;and make the documentation and source code 
available to everybody without charge, and without any NDA 
requirement, bugs will be found in Microsoft's code and fixes will 
be suggested, just as they are for other open source OSes such as 
Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, and 0penBSD. Microsoft's products will 
improve as a result of this process. Microsoft will receive the 
benefit that all Open Source software receives: bug fixes, increased 
security, and increased stability, all at no cost to Microsoft.
    Microsoft will be opposed to this requirement, arguing that 
their business will be destroyed by forcing their code open. This is 
not true! COPYRIGHT LAW AND CONTRACT LAW PROVIDE ALL THE LEGAL 
PROTECTION THAT MICROSOFT REQUIRES TO MAINTAIN THE VALUE IN THEIR 
SOURCE CODE. In the end, however, it does not matter if Microsoft 
benefits from the PFJ. What does matter is that Microsoft's monopoly 
abusing powers are restricted, and that the DoJ and the Court create 
the possibility for competitors to Microsoft to arise in the 
marketplace.
    Microsoft has been found guilty of abusing their monopoly. One 
of the ways that Microsoft has abused their monopoly is by using 
closed and proprietary algorithms, APIs, protocols, and file 
formats, and by changing them from time to time in order to create 
incompatibilities with non-Microsoft products, and with older 
Microsoft products that Microsoft wishes to make obsolete. 
Microsoft's *secret* algorithms, APIs, protocols, and file formats 
are part of the problem that the DoJ and the Court must remedy. Such 
secrecy cannot be part of the solution, even when it comes to 
``anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital rights 
management, encryption or authentication systems, including without 
limitation, keys, authorization tokens or enforcement 
criteria''. Furthermore, in light of the fact that SECURITY 
THROUGH OBSCURITY IS NO SECURITY AT ALL, there is never any 
justification for any ``governmental agency of competent 
jurisdiction'' to ``direct Microsoft not to'' 
COMPLETELY and ACCURATELY document *ALL* algorithms, APIs, 
protocols, and file formats--;without restriction--;and make 
the documentation and source code available to everybody without 
charge. Therefore, section III.J1 and III.J2 must be entirely 
stricken from the PFJ. As it is necessary to require Microsoft to 
COMPLETELY and ACCURATELY document *ALL* algorithms, APIs, 
protocols, and file formats--;without restriction--;and make 
the documentation and source code available to everybody without 
charge, and without any NDA requirement, it is not reasonable to 
require ``any of the Plaintiffs to keep secret any information 
or documents obtained from Microsoft'' as detailed in section 
IV.A.3 of the PFJ. This section should also be stricken from the 
PPJ.
    Patents
    Patents are a government granted monopoly. Microsoft has been 
judged to have a monopoly, and further, to have illegally abused 
that monopoly. For this reason, Microsoft should be forbidden from 
using its patents offensively. The government should not continue to 
grant a preferential monopoly to a convicted monopoly abuser.
    This is especially true in the case of Open Software and Free 
Software. Those who develop Free and Open Software and give it away 
to the world for no charge are greatly enhancing the wealth of the 
entire world. These people CANNOT afford to participate in the 
patent system. In addition, those who develop Free and Open Software 
are often philosophically opposed to the patent system, and would 
not participate even if they could. These people who are greatly 
increasing the world's wealth, should not have the patent system 
used against them by a convicted monopoly abuser.
    Microsoft has already threatened to use patents as an offensive 
weapon against Linux, the Free Software Foundation, the GNU Project, 
and other Free and Open Software producers. Full details can be 
found in the 2nd Halloween document.
    http://www.OpenSource.org/halloween/
    In order to protect the Free and Open Software movement from 
future monopoly abuse, Microsoft must be forbidden from using their 
patent portfolio offensively. This prohibition should *never* 
expire. A clause to this effect must be added to the PFJ in order to 
achieve an effective remedy.
    Enforcement
    A *very* strong enforcement mechanism needs to be put in place 
by the DoJ and by the Court. We have arrived at this juncture today 
because Microsoft failed to abide by previous consent decrees (1994) 
of the Court. Microsoft has proven themselves to be obstinate and 
belligerent. They cannot be trusted to obey this PFJ without strong 
and effective oversight. If by some unfortunate circumstance, the 
DoJ and the Court decide not to require Microsoft to disclose all 
source code, then an especially vigorous enforcement mechanism must 
be put in place to ensure COMPLETE and ACCURATE

[[Page 28689]]

documentation of *ALL* algorithms, APIs, protocols, and file 
formats. I would suggest that the PFJ should include a clause 
stipulating that if anybody finds any errors or discrepancies in 
Microsoft's documentation, then at that point the Technical 
Enforcement Committee shall have the authority to immediately force 
the disclosure of all relevant source code, in order to force 
compliance with the COMPLETE and ACCURATE documentation requirement.
    Dan Kegel's Comments
    I would like to add that I am a co-signer to Dan Kegel's 
comments.
    http://www.Kegel.com/remedy/letter.html
    I fully agree with Mr. Kegel's entire letter, including all 
links therein, and strongly urge that each of the problems noted 
therein must be remedied in the PFJ before the PFJ is adopted by the 
DoJ and by the Court.
    Thank you,
    Kenneth J. Hendrickson
    *All web references were current on 26-;27 January 2002, 
during the writing of these comments.



MTC-00029600

GLORIORS EVENTS
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 in support of the Microsoft antitrust settlement 
agreement. I would appreciate your consideration of the following 
comments about this issue.
    The settlement agreement will dramatically change the way 
Microsoft conducts its business. Microsoft will license Windows to 
the main computer manufacturers at the same price, and on the same 
terms. Microsoft has also agreed not to retaliate against those who 
distribute or promote software that competes with Windows. These 
concessions should subdue concerns about any ``predatory'' 
business practices by Microsoft.
    I find it interesting that the stock market took a rum for the 
worse when this litigation ensued. In the interest of stimulating 
the economy, doesn't it make sense to put an end to the lawsuit so 
that Microsoft can focus on its research and development endeavors?
    Thank you for your commitment to settle this case.
    Sincerely,
    Vetra Bilsland



MTC-00029601

294 E Frog Hollow Road
Science Hill, KY 42553
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Thankfully, an end is in sight for this whole mess. The 
Settlement reached in November answers all the proble??s that were 
brought against Microsoft at the beginning of the trial



MTC-00029602

44260 Riverview Ridge Drive
Clinton Township, MI 48038
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I was happy to hear that Microsoft had reached a settlement late 
last year with the Department of Justice. I believe the settlement 
will be good for consumers and the entire computer industry. 
Microsoft has agreed to many concessions in order to wrap up this 
case and move forward. For example, Microsoft has agreed to document 
and disclose for use by its competitors various interfaces that are 
internal to Windows'' operating system products. This type of 
provision is groundbreaking for an antitrust settlement. Also, 
Microsoft agreed to the creation of Technical Committee that will be 
charged with monitoring the company and assuring they meet all their 
obligations.
    I believe the federal government, especially in the current 
environment, could make better use of their resources than 
continuing this litigation. I commend you for your efforts to 
resolve tiffs case and hope you will finalize the settlement soon.
    Sincerely,
    Andrew Emerson
    cc :Representative David E. Bonior



MTC-00029603

January 20, 2002
Attention: Renata Hesse
Judge Kollar Kottely
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Judge Kollar Kottely:
    I am writing regarding the Microsoft anti-trust case and the 
lessons we should have learned from past experiences.
    As I recall, nearly three decades ago, the government initiated 
another antitrust lawsuit against a computer industry leader.
    Success was not defined by a legal victory in that case, but 
rather by the enormous business expenses incurred by the defendant. 
These expenses clearly resulted in allowing its competitors to catch 
up. After three years of the Microsoft case, it seems we are now at 
that point. This lawsuit has gone on long enough and any legal 
victory has lost its relevance because the financial price has been 
paid.
    I urge you to move forward by approving the proposed settlement. 
This settlement is in the best interest of the industry, the 
economy, and the consumer. It only makes sense to put an end to it.
    Thank you for your efforts on this important case.
    Sincerely,
    Rachel Maher
    Rachel Maher
    22939 Bauserman Road
    Easton, KS 66020



MTC-00029604

ARTISAN DESIGN, INC.
Computer Aided Design & Manufacturing
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    After three long years of court rattles, Microsoft and the 
Department of Justice have reached settlement regarding the 
antitrust suit. I believe that this settlement will be beneficial to 
both, the IT industry and the consumers alike It is necessary that 
those who are involved in the suit put aside their differences and 
work to put this issue behind us.
    Even though the settlement goes farther than what Microsoft 
would have liked, I believe that settling the case now is the right 
thing to do help the industry and the economy move forward. This 
settlement is fair and reasonable and was reached at after extensive 
negotiations with a court-appointed mediator present.
    There has been enough money spent, and the current settlement is 
perfectly acceptable. I feel it is incumbent upon the government to 
put a swift end to dais ordeal so that all involved parties can 
return to work. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Jake Breedveld
    35595-F Curtis Blvd, * East??ake; Ohio 44095 * (440) 
953-;0147 * Fax: (440) 953-;0148



MTC-00029605

13537 Glencliff Way
San Diego, CA 92130
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I would like the Justice Department to settle its antitrust 
lawsuit against Microsoft. I am aware that both sides reached an 
agreement in November that would end the case, and I support it. I 
believe if Microsoft appears to take the settlement seriously, and 
the company is taking steps to move on and to promote competition. 
Giving users a greater ability to integrate non-Microsoft programs 
into Windows will be beneficial to consumers and software developers 
everywhere. Additionally, Microsoft will level the tech playing 
field by using a uniform price listing when licensing Windows out to 
the largest computer makers in the nation. Also, Microsoft will not 
retaliate against companies that use, sell, or promote non-Microsoft 
products. I believe it is the time to end the case.
    Please settle the Microsoft case and allow them to concentrate 
on further innovating the way man), of us conduct our personal and 
professional business.
    Sincerely,
    Walter Liao



MTC-00029606

    URGENT
To: John Ashcroft, Esq.,
Voice Number:
Fax Number: 1-;202-;307-;1454
Company: Attorney General USA
From: MORRIS KAY
Company:
Fax Number: 305-;792-;4243
Voice Number: 305-;792-;4041

[[Page 28690]]

Date: 1/27/2002 
Number of Pages: 2
Subject: Settlement of MICROSOFT pending action.
Message:
Honorable Attorney General:
    Attached herein please find a letter expressing my sentiments on 
the matter related above,
    Respectfully Yours,
    Morris Kay
    20185 E Country Club Drive, #1701 Aventura, FL 33180
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 support for the recent 
settlement proposed to Microsoft by the DOJ. The truth is that I 
have a terrible time seeing what continued litigation would 
accomplish if the last three years were so unproductive. I would 
really love to see this lawsuit wrapped up so that taxpayers don't 
have to waste any more money. Additionally, wrapping up this case 
will help boost the slowing economy and give the IT industry much 
needed revitalization.
    I believe that the settlement is a fair one that encompasses all 
points of concern. Microsoft's adherence to terms of this contract 
ensures that future antitrust violations will not occur. Competitors 
may also put their concerns to rest as a result of several of 
Microsoft's agreement. Microsoft has agreed to create future 
versions of Windows that will allow for non-Microsoft products to 
function therein. Also, Microsoft has agreed to disclose Windows 
interfaces and Intellectual property.
    It is my hope flint Microsoft desire to comply will help to 
quell the concerns of the dissatisfied states. Please make the 
necessary decision to wrap this matter up as soon as possible. This 
will be in the best interest of the IT industry, the economy and 
consumes.



MTC-00029607

January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I support the settlement reached in the Microsoft antitrust 
case. The settlement reflects the compromises and concessions of the 
parties, especially Microsoft, over three months of negotiations 
with the assistance of a court-appointed mediator. I feel that 
approval of the settlement by the Federal Court would be in the best 
public interest of America. The settlement addresses the complaints 
brought against Microsoft simply for using all its legal rights. 
Microsoft's legally protected innovations in its software code for 
its internal interface and server interoperability protocols will be 
disclosed to the whole industry, while its other copyrighted and 
patented intellectual property will be licensed on non-
discriminatory terms to any company that wants to use it. Computer 
makers will be given more flexible contracts to work with non-
Microsoft companies like AOL Time Warner, RealNetworks, and 
Symantec. A technical committee will ensure the terms are followed. 
These terms will provide an opportunity for the American computer 
industry to make better use of the very widely used Windows 
operating system, and will allow Microsoft to get the lawsuit, with 
its distraction and expense, over with.
    I appreciate your strong stand in favor of the Microsoft case 
settlement. Thank you.
    Sincerely,



MTC-00029608

01/28/2002 MON 09:05
FAX 914 693 2247
THE REMBAR COMPANY INC 001/001
Michael Misch
39 Chestnut St
Dobbs Ferry, NY 10522
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The antitrust case between the federal government and Microsoft 
has been going on for much too long, and I would like to see the 
settlement that the two sides reached become final so that the 
matter can be put behind us once and for all. The two sides agreed 
to a reasonable compromise that will foster competition in the 
industry, and I see no reason to pursue litigation beyond this 
point.
    The technology industry has struggled as a result of this 
lawsuit, and the nation's economy has been negatively affected as 
well. Once this settlement becomes final, consumers will have more 
choices in the marketplace, and independent companies will have a 
better chance to compete in the future. Microsoft has agreed to 
design future versions of the Windows operating system so that 
computer makers may remove Microsoft software and replace it with 
that of its competitors. Microsoft has also agreed to license its 
products to the 20 largest computer makers at uniform prices. These 
and the many other concessions that Microsoft has made in order to 
achieve this settlement are certainly enough to stop this 
litigation.
    I realize that this settlement was reached after long and 
arduous hours of negotiations, and [appreciate your decision not 
pursue this matter any further. I am hopeful that no more action 
will be taken against Microsoft in the future.
    Sincerely,



MTC-00029609

2401 Zion Hill Road
Weatherford, TX 76088
January 26, 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 support the settlement that was 
reached in November and believe this agreement will serve in the 
best public interest. I am a Microsoft supporter and feel that this 
company should not be punished for being successful.
    Microsoft has agreed to all terms and conditions of this 
settlement. Under this agreement, Microsoft must 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 has also agreed to document and disclose 
for use by its competitors various interfaces that are internal to 
Windows'' operating system products.



MTC-00029610

William Young 4142 Dundee Drive
Murrysville, PA 15668-;1010
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As a supporter of Microsoft, I write you in reference to the 
recent settlement. The settlement is fair and reasonable and should 
be adopted immediately. After three years of negotiations, further 
delay would be ridiculous. What more is there to discuss? It is time 
to get on with business and get our technology industry back to 
normal.
    Not only has Microsoft agreed to make changes in licensing and 
marketing, but has agreed to design future versions of Windows that 
will allow for easier installation of non-Microsoft software. Also, 
in an anti-trust first, Microsoft has agreed to disclose internal 
information about the Windows operating system. An outside committee 
will monitor Microsoft's compliance with the agreement.
    By stopping any further federal action on this case, we are 
allowing our technology industry to get back to business. I urge you 
to help get this agreement moving. I thank you for your help.
    Sincerely,
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum
    Representative Melissa A. Hart



MTC-11

Mr. John Martin
3208 SW Sena Drive
Topeka, KS 66604
January 23, 2002
Renata Hesse, Antitrust Division Public Comment
U.S. Department of Justice
6I)1 D Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Renata Hesse,
    Thank you for accepting my comments regarding the rod-trust 
lawsuit against Microsoft. It seems to me that the companies that 
pushed the suit against Microsoft their competitors: AOL, Oracle, 
San Micro are about the only ones who don't want to see the case 
settled. I can understand that as rival high-tech companies, they 
will do ``whatever it takes'' to compete, but I think this 
case has gone on long enough.
    The DOJ is on the right track to try to settle their case 
against Microsoft. It is my hope that eventually all of the states 
involved in the case. will do the same. I hope that the companies 
that Cave pushed this lawsuit

[[Page 28691]]

from the beginning see the writing on the wall and start to worry 
about competing for customers in fire marketplace rather than the 
cou??troom.
    I strongly urge you to sign off on the settlement terms that 
have been a agreed to by both sides so that we can at least begin to 
clean up the mess this case has caused.
    Sincerely,
    John Martin



MTC-00029612

iNetXperts
January 25,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Please make haste to settle the lawsuit in the case of USA vs. 
Microsoft. I believe that if the terms of the settlement are 
enforced strictly they are sufficient to prevent Microsoft from 
engaging in unfair business practices with OEMs and software 
companies.
    It is better for consumers, businesses and the IT industry that 
this suit is ended.
    Sincerely,
    Mark Heaney
    CTO
    iNetXperts Corporation, 113 N. Washington St. #490, 
Rockville, MD 20850
    tel 202.262.9348
    fax 603.947.4732 www.inetxperts.com



MTC-00029613

DATE: January 27, 2002
PHONE:
TO: Renata B. Hesse Department of Justice
FAX: 202-;307-;1454
FROM: D. Shah
PHONE: 707-;538-;5900
RE: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
FAX: 253-;484-;2789
Number of pages including cover sheet: 7
Message
    Pursuant to the Tunney Act, please find enclosed my comments on 
the Microsoft settlement.
January 27, 2002
VIA FACSIMILE & EMAIL
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Sir/Madame.
    The Microsoft settlement proposed by the Justice Department 
should not be. approved by the court. It does not adequately prevent 
Microsoft from abusing its monopoly powers, It is also a poor 
solution in that it will be complicated to enforce and Microsoft 
will have economic incentive to try to circumvent the agreement.
    No doubt, there are precise legal standards that the court must 
follow in reviewing the settlement and making its decision. As a 
layman, I cannot hope to address the intricate legal issues as to 
what is explicitly mandated by statute and precedence--;I can 
only speak in broad terms. My background is that of an engineer 
(M.S. in EECS) with 20 years of experience using PC software at work 
and at home and that of a founder and officer of a small software 
development company. I comment mostly from the perspective of an end 
user of PC software products. As a businessman, I have had 
substantial, experience negotiating, implementing, and litigating 
busincss agreements. I have found that the best agreements are those 
that (1) align the economic interest of the two parties (i.e. there 
is no economic benefit to either party to try to circumvent the 
agreement) and (2) are simple. The proposed settlement agreement is 
neither.
    As one example, the language in the agreement requires Microsoft 
to provide access to certain information only to viable business 
entities. In paragraph III(J)(2)(c), the proposed settlement states 
that Microsoft will not be required to provide API's or 
Documentation to an entity that fails to meet ``reasonable, 
objective standards established by Microsoft for certifying the 
authenticity and viability of its business.'' Arguably, this 
language could allow Microsoft to exclude access to small 
businesses, start-ups, and Linux developers (or other non-profit 
type software developers) if it was in Microsoft's economic interest 
to do so.
    For a second example, the proposed settlement requires Microsoft 
not to automatically override OEM settings. Paragraph III(H)(3)(b) 
says Microsoft must not seek permission from the end user for 
``[automatic] alteration of the OEM's configuration until 14 
days after the initial boot up of a new Personal Computer.'' 
What does the agreement mean by initial bootup? Strictly speaking, 
``initial bootup'' could be interpreted to mean the first 
time the unit is turned on by the manufacture or the local retailer 
(for testing & verification purposes) and not the first time the 
end user turns on the machine. (As an aside, why does Microsoft need 
to be able to automatically override any settings? It should be 
sufficient to notify the user in the manual or on-line help that the 
user can change his settings by selecting the proper options in his 
application program or Windows operating system.) If such a simple 
item is this complicated to interpret and enforce, what does it 
augur for the rest of the agreement?
    While it may not be the perfect solution, separating Microsoft 
into two independent companies meets the criteria stated above for a 
good business agreement. One, a breakup is simple, once it is 
completed, it is done--;there is no agreement to interpret. Two, 
a breakup eliminates any economic incentive for Microsoft to 
circumvent an agreement because there is no agreement to circumvent 
once the breakup is completed.
    My strong feelings about this case arise because I constantly 
find I have no real choice in my selection of PC operating systems 
and applications. As much as Microsoft's legal counsel and 
economists may argue about the user having choices and being better 
off, I find from my personal experience, that I am not.
    If I am unhappy with my GM car, I can easily switch with my next 
purchase to a Toyota, Ford, Chrysler, Honda, etc. at zero cost. If I 
dislike my Sony television, I can buy a Zenith, JVC, Philips, or 
Panasonic, etc. without constraint. Nowadays, I have the freedom to 
switch phone service or my television reception from cable to 
satellite. Even with my PC, I can switch from Dell to IBM, Compaq, 
HP or others, But, I cannot switch from my use of the Microsoft 
operating system or Microsoft applications without cost. so 
substantial as to be prohibitive.
    On the surface it may appear that there are alternatives to 
Microsoft's operating systems and applications. However, there are 
six barriers which effectively prevent me from using a competitor's 
product. First, because of Microsoft's market dominance, there is 
far more support from other vendors for Microsoft's products. For 
example, an application program or peripheral such as a printer may 
not be supported under either the Apple or Linux operating systems. 
Other vendor's import/export utilities, synchronization functions or 
the like may only support dominant Microsoft applications such as 
Word or Excel. Similarly, web sites may be designed to function best 
with Microsoft Internet Explorer as compared to competing products.
    As a concrete example, consider my brother's experience with the 
Apple Imac. My brother's children learned to use the Imac growing up 
because of its superior user interface as compared to Microsoft 
Windows, However, my brother is now finding that it is too difficult 
to support the Imac on his home network and DSL line. Vendors just 
do not provide the same support for Apple that they do for Windows. 
Additionally, it is too difficult to maintain both Windows systems 
(for his use) and Apple systems. Therefore, he is forced to switch 
the children to using Microsoft Windows.
    Second, if I wish to use a non-Microsoft product in an area 
where Microsoft is entrenched, I will be at a tremendous 
disadvantage when trying to share information. I will be speaking 
French when everybody else is speaking English. For example, given 
that everybody uses Microsoft Excel or Word, what real freedom do I 
have to select a different word processor or spreadsheet (even if 
superior) when I will be unable to share files with my clients or 
vendors.
    Third, I have invested substantial time in learning to use and 
debug my existing Windows and Microsoft application programs. I 
cannot afford to switch to a competing operating system or 
application and start at ground zero on the learning curve. The 
amount of time it takes to learn to use a new application is 
enormous. It far outweighs the dollar cost of purchasing the 
product. To become as proficient in another word processor 
application as I am in Microsoft Word after years of use would take 
months at the very least. No one can afford that cost. As 
applications grow larger and more complex, this barrier grows larger 
and larger in Microsoft's favor.
    In an interview, Bill Gates himself points out that Microsoft's 
biggest competitor (when they release a new operating system) is 
themselves. Users who have already invested time and money in 
purchasing and using an older version of Windows are loathe to 
switch to a new version because of the cost in dollars and time to 
install, debug, and learn the new version. Imagine then the

[[Page 28692]]

barrier posed to a completely new operating system or application.
    Fourth, there is risk that if I am using a non-Microsoft 
product, the vendor will eventually be forced out of business by 
Microsoft and I will ultimately have to switch to the Microsoft 
product anyway. This was the case with my Lotus and WordPerfect 
products. In both case, I was finally forced to switch to Microsoft 
products when the vendors went out of business. Now, if I need to 
choose between a Microsoft and competing product, the safe decision 
is to select Microsoft because it is likely the competitor will be 
eventually driven out of business.
    Fifth, there is a cost to switch to a new application because of 
prior work (data files) that has been generated by the old 
application. If I have a substantial amount of prior work saved in 
data flies produced by my Microsoft applications, switching to a 
competing application means I lose compatibility with all of my old 
work. At the very least, I will have to spend time converting the 
data files with the accompanying risk of losing information or 
formatting.
    Sixth, It is risky to use a non-Microsoft product because 
Microsoft has the upper hand. in keeping its applications in step 
with operating system upgrades and taking advantage of new operating 
system features. Microsoft is in a position to improve its products 
faster because it is also in charge of the underlying operating 
system. By the same token, Microsoft applications are least likely 
to break with operating system upgrades. No competitor has that same 
advantage. (If Microsoft argues there is no advantage, then it 
should have no complaint against being separated into two 
independent companies).
    In summary, I do not have the freedom to choose to use Microsoft 
products because they are superior but am forced to use them because 
the investment in time and potential risk to use competing products 
is too high.
    There are many examples where Microsoft did not have a superior 
product (or, initially, even a product), but ultimately succeeded 
due to its monopoly position. For a non-exhaustive list, consider 
the products: Word (vs. WordPerfect), Excel (w. Lotus), Internet 
Explorer (vs. Netscape), Microsoft Project (vs. Symantec's Timeline 
project management software) and even Windows (vs. the Macintosh). 
In each of these cases, Microsoft did not have the first product or 
even the better product. Yet, over time in each case Microsoft has 
either put the other product out of business or become the clear-cut 
market leader.
    In these cases, Microsoft did not succeed because it was the 
innovator; but because it had a monopoly in the operating system 
market. It could use its ownership of the operating system and its 
monopoly profits to enter new markets and eventually push out the 
competition. No other company, even dominant ones such as Lotus, 
WordPerfect, and Novell with all their financial resources, has been 
able to compete successfully against Microsoft because of the 
monopoly Microsoft enjoys.
    Another example of the monopoly power Microsoft enjoys, is its 
recent decision not to include JAVA in its latest version of 
Windows. Given the runaway popularity of JAVA, only a monopoly such 
as Microsoft could risk making that decision. In a competitive 
environment, no operating system vendor would decide to exclude JAVA 
and pursue its own initiative. Microsoft can afford to do that 
because it wields such absolute control over the operating system 
market. A consumer has no alternate choice of operating systems so 
he is forced to accept Microsoft's decision to exclude JAVA from the 
operating system.
    As a final example, consider the operating system called 
``OS/2'' developed and marketed by IBM. There can be no 
question that it was a superior operating system and years ahead of 
Microsoft Windows. It failed however because of the barrier posed by 
Microsoft's installed base of users. The fact that even IBM failed 
to make any headway in the market is further evidence of Microsoft's 
power as a monopoly.
    Microsoft may argue that the reason for its success in all of 
the above examples is that it had the better product or strategy. 
This is patently false. Microsoft was not the first one to introduce 
a windowing operating system, an internet browser, the concept of a 
spreadsheet, a word processor, etc. Microsoft has only been 
successful in first copying and then outlasting the competition. 
Microsoft argues that there is no need to regulate Microsoft as a 
monopoly because technology and the product landscape change so fast 
that not even Microsoft can exercise monopoly powers. I think it is 
just this argument taken in context of Microsoft's success time 
after time over the last decade that is the smoking gun. No company 
other than Microsoft has been so successful. It is so unlikely that 
in an area where the pace of change is this fast, that any one 
company could be so successful in every endeavor it undertakes, that 
it must be taken for granted that the company enjoys substantial 
monopoly power.
    Contrast Microsoft's situation to that of microprocessors and 
Intel. Intel is a dominant market leader but faces fierce 
competition from AMD, Motorola, and others in the microprocessor 
market. As a result, we have seen a 100-fold or more increase in 
price vs. performance (comparing a 33MHz 80386 processor to a 2GHz 
Pentium II) over perhaps the last 10 years. Imagine a situation 
where Intel enjoyed the same monopoly position that Microsoft does 
today. That is to say, there was effectively no competition from 
AMD, Motorola, or others. Without doubt, we would not have seen the 
same increase in performance vs. price. Intel would not have been 
forced It innovate and cut prices at the rate it is forced it do so 
today in order to maintain its market leadership. This is clearly 
evident from the reported news where each time AMD releases a 
microprocessor, Intel responds by cutting prices. Of course, there 
would still have been improvements in microprocessor performance if 
Intel was a monopoly, but nowhere near the current pace. Intel would 
have made slow improvements at its own unhurried pace under little 
pressure from others.
    Microsoft has at times argued that it is not a monopoly because 
the price of its operating system software (as a percentage of the 
price of a PC) has come down over the years and this is 
characteristically untrue of monopoly pricing. Even if the price of 
software is in fact lower today than 10 years ago, it is a 
meaningless statistic. The relevant question is what would the price 
of software be today if Microsoft did not enjoy a monopoly position. 
As compared to the innovation fostered in the microprocessor arena 
due to competition, software performance has advanced relatively 
slowly, [here certainly has not been a 100-fold increase in the 
performance of Microsoft's software over the last 10 years.
    In considering the proposed settlement, the court must balance 
protecting Microsoft's rights and our system of free enterprise 
against the damage to society from continued abuse by Microsoft's 
monopoly position. I think the court must err on the side of the 
consumer. On a big-picture scale, there is no great damage to 
Microsoft, its shareholders or the concept of free enterprise by 
breaking Microsoft into separate operating companies. On the other 
hand, there is potential for great damage to innovation and free 
enterprise if Microsoft is free to remain a monopoly and to use its 
power to stifle new products and block the success of other 
companies.
    In conclusion, the question simply comes down to whether the 
typical end user is better off because of Microsoft's monopoly. As a 
typical end user, I am firmly convinced that I am not and hope that 
the courts will take strict action.
    Sincerely,
    D. Shah



MTC-00029614

A??ey General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 50530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am retired from a career in engineering. J have used a 
vatlet3, of computer systems, and I have found computing with 
Microsoft's Windows software to be easier, more affordable and in 
many way more productive than other systems. Windows has brought 
welcome uniformity to the way people work with computers.
    It is certainly time to accept the settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust case. The lawsuit was, in some ways, a big joke by 
Microsoft's less successful competitors intended to give Microsoft a 
raw deal in court. I am glad that you took the lead in directing 
your department to earnestly work with the mediator appointed by the 
new judge. The settlement will le?? the American computer industry 
get back to concentrating on making better, innovative products and 
maintaining America's leadership in the world of technology.
    The anti-Microsoft forces have agreed not to pursue the 
outrageous and ridiculous demand made by a few of them to 
``divide and conquer'' Microsoft. In return, Microsoft has 
agreed to give up much of its legal rights to its intellectual 
properly, and business practice. Until now, no company in antitrust 
litigation has ever had to give its industry the copyrighted 
software codes to the internal interfaces to its operating system 
programs. Nonetheless, Microsoft has agreed to license

[[Page 28693]]

those codes to any party on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. 
Microsoft will release companies that make computers from exclusive 
marketing agreements, allowing them to mix and match Windows with 
other operating systems. Also, even the largest equipment builders 
will be offered a uniform price and term list, instead of individual 
negotiations. The Windows desktop program included with installation 
will be made easy to remove and replace with those made by others, 
such as AOL Time Warner, which owns its own browser and internet 
messaging software, With government-sponsored engineers who are 
experts in software monitoring the agreement and investigating and, 
complaints, the public can be assured of compliance.
    Thank you for your support of the settlement. It should be 
approved, because it is in the best interest of the American public.
    Sincerely,
    Allan J. Hessel
    Hessel Properties Inc.



MTC-00029615

Jo Phylis Esman
3864 NE 167th Street
North Miami Beach, FL 33160
January 25 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I support your efforts to see that the Federal Court approves 
the settlement of the Microsoft antitrust case. I believe that 
approval of the settlement would be in the best interest of the 
United States. I do not think Microsoft ever had or abused a 
monopoly. I think Microsoft simply build the best, easiest to use, 
value-priced software. There have always been software choices to be 
made in buying computers. Microsoft just won out. However, the 
settlement is good in that it gets the lawsuit behind Microsoft and 
opens up the Windows software to the industry.
    Just as Microsoft gives up much in the settlement, the computer 
industry gains much in being better able to integrate its products 
with Microsoft's Windows operating system, or avoiding Microsoft 
products. Microsoft will disclose its software code for internal 
Windows interfaces and license its other software to any company 
that wants to use it. Computer makers will no longer be required to 
adhere to exclusive marketing agreements with Microsoft, and will be 
able to modify Windows to remove Microsoft's program, such as 
Internet Explorer. So, I do not see what Microsoft's competitors 
could really still want in a reasonable way. Some competitors, 
having been ignored by customers, seem to think they can become 
bigger fish in a smaller pond by seeking to dismember and destroy 
Microsoft. That would not be good for America and its leading place 
in the worldwide computer industry.



MTC-00029616

Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street, IV. W., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I understand that you are currently reviewing public comments on 
the Microsoft settlement and I am pleased to have this chance to 
participate.
    John Ashcroft's team was smart to 9o after a reasonable 
settlement of this case that has been hanging around since 1998. My 
only disappointment is that Kansas was not one of the many states 
that joined this settlement, I do not understand why our Attorney 
General Carla Stovall has banded together with Microsoft's 
competitors to pursue breaking up this strong and vibrant company. 
Ignoring the real benefits of this settlement ignores the needs of 
the technology industry and the national economy.
    I am appalled that private corporations like Oracle and AOL-Time 
Warner are so committed to continued litigation. Apparently the 
decision-makers in this company refuse to see the negative effects 
their actions and this suit have had on the economy as a whole. 
They, along with the AGs still on the case, also seem to believe 
that break-up is the only acceptable solution. I believe this shows 
their true colors.
    For those who believe Microsoft was guilty of some wrong doing 
this agreement provides many solutions. For example, it provides 
guaranteed flexibility for computer manufacturers, Microsoft must is 
not allowed to punish manufacturers who do not promote Windows and 
Microsoft is required to share certain sensitive information that 
will definitely put their competitors at an advantage. And to top it 
all of, a Technology Committee that will make sure Microsoft is 
living up to all aspects of the settlement will guard the integrity 
of the agreement.
    Please accept this settlement.
    Sincerely



MTC-00029617

Corrie A. Kangas
I 17.55 W. ?? 12th Street
Overland Park, KS 66210
913-;406-;3649
January 21, 2002
Renata Hesse
Antitrust; Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    I encourage you to view settlement of the Microsoft antitrust 
suit as a positive solution designed to benefit all parties 
involved. The proposed settlement addresses every point of the 
charges upheld by the court.
    It is certainly a step toward rejuvenating our lagging economy 
and restoring faith and investment in the ever changing, ever 
lucrative tech sector.
    This competitor driven lawsuit, thinly veiled as consumer 
advocacy, has actually done more to harm the consumer than protect 
it. To date, more than 30 million dollars of taxpayer money has been 
spent on this lawsuit that has affected the consumer through little 
more than financial implications. The lawsuit has dragged the 
economy down, giving a bearish outlook toward tech investments, 
thwarting new innovation. The American public is ready for closure. 
I urge you to review the settlement before you, and to concur it's a 
suitable conclusion for all.
    Sincerely,
    Corrie Kangas



MTC-00029618

January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    If you build a better mousetrap the world will beat a path to 
your door. They did, it has.
    I write to you today to express my opinion that the Microsoft 
antitrust case lacks merit, in that, it does not represent the good 
or the will of the public, it represents only special interest 
groups who, as they are finally finding some acceptance realize that 
their own intellectual properties might be challenged by the 
government. Microsoft created a better product than their 
competitors. It should not be prosecuted for its success.
    Microsoft is not the only operating system. It has many 
competitors who are rapidly closing ground(unix 1innux ect.) 
Hampered by greedy litigation, government regulation, and time it 
may not survive. This company is no Standard Oil or Enron There is 
only slight evidence of what is known in the parlance of southern 
lawyers and horse traders as ``sharp practice''. If you 
buy a Rolls Royce with accessories included, you should not sue the 
provider because the radio is difficult to remove and the Honda 
radio you want to install may not fit.
    The case against Microsoft should be immediately dismissed. The 
right to create, incorporate, innovate and merchandise are 
recognized as free enterprise in this country.
    Sincerely,
    Will Taylor
    2855 Jordan Woods Dr.
    Lawrenceville, Georgia 30044



MTC-00029619

Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    Late last year the Justice Department and Microsoft reached a 
long sought after compromise in the anti-trust case. I understand 
that in order to comply with the Tunney Act members of the public 
at= provided with the opportunity to provide comment on the 
settlement.
    There is no doubt that this case against Microsoft has been art 
interesting one to observe. The issues of this case are fairly 
simple to grasp, the government is basically contending that 
Microsoft has violated anti-trust laws through its business 
practices and has in fact committed consumer harm.
    One interesting aspect of this case is that throughout the last 
four years that we have watched this case unfold and have heard 
reports of the impending break-up of

[[Page 28694]]

Microsoft we have yet to be shown one sliver or'' evidence that 
demonstrates consumer harm.
    Another aspect of this case is not so much interesting as it is 
painful. In I998 when this case first began, our country was in the 
midst of a healthy economy. The New Economy was really beginning to 
look real. However, as this case began to pick up steam and break-up 
rumors were rampant the tech economy began to drift downward. 
Americans have experienced the impact of this lawsuit first hand in 
their investment accounts and lost jobs.
    The DOI and Microsoft have deemed this settlement satisfactory. 
It outlines remedies for Microsoft that appear to he equitable given 
what has held up in lower courts. The compromise now on the table 
will bring an end to a suit that has already cause significant 
damage. I urge you to accept it.
    Sincerely,
    Sharon Miller



MTC-00029620

Joyce O. Thedy
933 Beverly Garden Dr.
Metairie, La. USA 10002-;5001
[email protected]
January 27,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The settlement agreement reached between the Justice Department 
and Microsoft was welcome news, and I hope that it is implemented 
after the close of the public comment period.
    The agreement will provide additional opportunities for software 
companies to compete with Microsoft products. Microsoft has agreed 
to allow competition from non-Microsoft programs within its Windows 
operating systems, and it has agreed to allow its distributors and 
licensees to deal in products other than those produced by 
Microsoft.
    Whether or not these additional opportunities for competition 
will result in an increase in products and consumer choice remains 
to be seen. However, the purpose of this case and the settlement are 
to open avenues of competition, not to guarantee the success of the 
competitors.
    Thank you for the opportunity to voice my opinion.
    Sincerely.
    Joyce Thedy
    933 Beverly Garden Drive
    Metairie, LA 70002



MTC-00029622

BONNIE BERGGREN
January 19, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    As a political activist in Kansas, I do my best to follow 
current events and to take seriously my responsibilities as a 
citizen by exercising my rights and fighting to uphold the liberties 
I maintain as a citizen of this great nation. This letter is a small 
way for me to use these values to state the reasons I believe 
settlement of the Microsoft anti-trust case is overdue and serves 
the interests of Microsoft, their competitors and the consumers of 
these products.
    Though many are wary of government interference in business, the 
damage this lawsuit has caused from an economic and developmental 
standpoint justifies settling under the terms of the current 
proposal. In an attempt to move on with business, however 
restricted, Microsoft has offered to be subject to review by an 
onsite technical committee, having access to all areas at all 
times--;at Microsoft's expense. This provision leaves Microsoft 
with time and loyalty as the only advantage over their competition.
    Now, more than ever, it is imperative that we preserve the 
freedom to innovate and promote free commerce. Approval of the 
settlement will allow our industry to move forward, freeing the 
courts and our nation to focus on some of the more demanding issues 
of today.
    Thank you,
    Bonnie Berggren



MTC-00029623

1622 Plum Street
San Diego, CA 92106
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to you on behalf of Microsoft regarding the 
antitrust suit of the Department of Justice against Microsoft. I 
personally feel that this litigation is absolutely a waste of time 
and energy. 1 feel very strongly on this issue and believe that 
companies that cannot compete in the open free market should not run 
to the Federal Government for help.
    As a physicist I have used computers at home and work. Microsoft 
has not been my favorite supplier of software (too unstable and 
crash prone). Only casually have I followed the details of the 
government's case against Microsoft. However, as a consumer [ don't 
feel that Microsoft has done me any harm. In fact quite the 
opposite--;their bundling of suites of programs with their 
browser has saved me money, and has furnished the industry with a 
single standard.
    My suggestion is to move on to more pressing matters.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Yours truly.
    Myer Geller
    Tel: 619,223.8425
    Fax:619.523,8885
    E-Mail: [email protected]



MTC-00029624

Steve Loney
3032 Aspen Road
Ames Iowa 50014
January 3, 2002
Judge Kollar Kotelly
c/o Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Judge Kotelly:
    For over a year now our country has been facing serious economic 
problems. The stock market is weak, the economy is waning, and 
Americans are losing jobs. There is not one definitive reason why we 
are facing these economic hard times and our recovery is dependent 
upon several factors.
    It is important that we make smart decisions about everything 
that may influence our economy. One bright spot on the economic 
horizon is the proposed settlement between the United States and 
Microsoft. This proposal is a fair settlement for all involved and 
will provide benefit to our economy.
    While some may argue this settlement is not a good one, a fair 
review of its provisions demonstrates that it strikes a good 
compromise. Among other things, Microsoft will be required to share 
its intellectual property and an independent committee will be 
established to ensure that Microsoft is following the rules of the 
agreement.
    For over twenty years Microsoft has been a leader of our 
national economy and its growth. When the government threatened to 
assert new and excessive regulations on this strong corporation its 
impact was felt throughout the economy. By allowing this settlement 
to take place the case will come to a fair conclusion and the best 
interests of our country will be served.
    Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Ames, Iowa



MTC-00029625

William Bellamy
3919 Highwiew, Road
Chailotte, ?? 28210
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The purpose of this letter is to voice my support of the 
settlement. Microsoft has been at the forefront of the technology 
industries for years. It is through their dedication to innovation 
that Microsoft has been able to forge their way in this industry. 
Microsoft has done more for this country than any other company in 
technology industry. I believe that raising legal battle in this 
case is altogether unwarranted. Despite these sentiments, I am 
pleased that there has finally been resolution in this issue.
    The terms of the settlement show Microsoft's further dedication 
to resolve this issue. One of the most important aspects of this 
resolution is that Microsoft will now license Windows at the same 
rate to the twenty biggest computer makers. PC makers will not have 
to gain favor with Microsoft in order to receive the same rate on 
the Windows system. This should give PC makers a little more freedom 
in the negotiations process.
    To summarize, I believe that the terms of this agreement are 
fair and should be enacted

[[Page 28695]]

with haste. Thank you for your time regarding this issue.
    Sincerely,
    William Bellamy



MTC-00029626

January 26, 2002
Sury S Tumuluri
2475 Brookshire Drive # 80-;9
Schenectady, NY, 12309
(H) 518-;381-;1885
(W) 518-;385-;0581
e- mail: [email protected]
To,
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    Please permit me to express my opinion of the settlement that 
was finally reached in the antitrust case against Microsoft. It is 
my opinion that this settlement is fair and should be accepted by 
the all parties involved in this case.
    The settlement disciplines and restrains Microsoft adequately 
such that it will not have a monopoly on the Technology and yet 
leaves it free to continue with its excellent and monumental work. I 
am among those who felt pleased that Microsoft agreed to design all 
future versions of Windows to be compatible with the products of its 
competitors and desist from retaliatory tactics.
    We should also note that the settlement would also be ensured by 
a technical oversight committee that will monitor Microsoft's 
business practices in future to be sure that they comply with the 
settlement.
    I am writing this letter to request you to support this 
settlement and ensure that the future of American business in 
general and IT Industry in particular is not stifled and side 
tracked.
    Thank You,
    Sincerely,
    (Sury S Tumuluri)



MTC-00029627

Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice--;Antitrust Division
601 ``D'' Street--;Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Thank you for this forum to share my thoughts regarding the 
continuing case against the Microsoft Corporation.
    The Microsoft Corporation is one of country's leading producers 
and is certainly a worldwide leader in the growing technology 
market. I believe this company is an excellent model for study of 
the free enterprise system. We must always remember that Microsoft 
was not always the giant it is today, instead this company was 
created from virtually nothing. It was the innovations and business 
savvy of its founders that have brought it to the pinnacle of 
success.
    It is the nature of the business world that when a company finds 
success it becomes the target of its adversaries in the business 
world. This is part of our system. What I do not believe is part of 
our system is when the government sets its sites on company simply 
because it is successful.
    The success of this company is felt by all of us. Microsoft has 
provided good products that make all of our lives easier. These 
products are easy to use and relatively inexpensive. The company has 
worked hard to get where it is today and I am sure works just as 
hard to stay there. This is not a crime.
    What is disturbing is that the pursuit of Microsoft has also 
been felt by all of us. We are living in a very strained economy. 
Prior to the onset of this suit, the computer and information 
industry was truly booming. Since the suit began, however, this 
sector of our economy stalled dramatically. The effects of this slow 
down have been felt throughout the markets and have negatively added 
to our strained economy.
    I can only assume that the agreement is a fair one since both 
the Justice Department and Microsoft have agreed to its provisions. 
It is my hope that the court will approve this settlement.
    Sincerely,



MTC-00029628

Sornson Masonry Construction, Inc.
7520 Valley St
Dalton Gardens, ID 83815
January 27, 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 we do not 
agree with the relentless pursuit of the Microsoft Corporation, we 
are 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. It is also our understanding that they will 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. 
We support this settlement and would like to see it implemented as 
soon as possible.
    Sincerely,
    David W. Sornson
    Cheryl A. Sornson



MTC-00029629

January 23, 2002
Renata Hesse, Esq.
Trial Attorney
Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    Thank you for the opportunity to express my opinion regarding 
the anti-trust lawsuit against Microsoft.
    I was elected to the Kansas State House in 2000 and my 
experiences since that time has taught me that the actions of 
government can often have negative effects on the average American. 
I think this holds true in the government's case against Microsoft.
    There is no doubt that this pursuit of Microsoft has negatively 
affected our economic health. At a time when many states are facing 
major budget problems, they have also been spending taxpayers'' 
money to finance this case. In fact, here in Kansas, our budget 
problems are so bad that some members of the Legislature are 
supporting an increase in taxes. At the same time, our Attorney 
General sees fit to continue wasting tax money on this case that the 
public clearly wants to see brought to an end.
    When we look back at the fall of the technology industry and the 
markets overall, we should not be surprised. Our government was 
determined to use the courts to break up one of the world's largest 
companies. Of course the markets are going to feel the effects of 
this. Of course investors are going to wait on the sidelines. Of 
course struggling technology companies will declare bankruptcy. And 
of course the American worker and consumer will feel the pinch.
    The settlement currently under consideration addresses this 
matter fully and fairly. It represents a true compromise. Allowing 
the proposed settlement to go through is the right thing to do 
legally. It is also the right thing to do in order to help 
revitalize our economy and restore faith in the capitalist system we 
all appreciate.
    Thank you.
    Rep. Mary Pilcher Cook



MTC-00029630

GENE RASQUEZ
4708 SW TERRACE
AUGUSTA, KS 67010
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney, Anti-trust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 ``D'' Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I always appreciate an opportunity to participate in government 
matters that affect me directly as an American citizen and I thank 
you for conducting this comment period regarding the Microsoft anti-
trust lawsuit.
    I simply wish to voice my full support for the settlement 
proposed by the President's team. This settlement provides a genuine 
solution to a costly lawsuit--;the merits of which are hotly 
debated across the nation. There are so many other more critical 
issues facing our government and your court, especially in light of 
the September 11 '' attacks, that I cannot see the wisdom in 
continuing to pursue one of our best and brightest organizations. 
Microsoft's agreement to operate under the stringent restrictions 
imposed by the proposed settlement is an indication to me of the 
company's good faith and the tech market could certainly use the 
boost of confidence this settlement would provide.
    I trust that the court will see the benefits of settling this 
matter in the manner proposed and move to accept the Bush settlement 
agreement.
    Sincerely,
    Gene Basquez

[[Page 28696]]



MTC-00029631

Rev David J. Goodrich
P.O. Box 1600
Norwich, VT 05055
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    To provide some personal feedback during this 60-day public 
comment period, in my opinion it's about time that the government 
reached a settlement in its case against Microsoft. I feel the legal 
action should never have begun in the first place, and the Justice 
Department should stop wasting tax money on this issue.
    America was built by people who worked hard to be successful and 
make money at their businesses, and the government should not try 
and stop them. Microsoft built themselves from the ground up by 
making a better product at a fair price, which has left their 
competitors desperate enough to push for this legal action. By 
agreeing to several terms to encourage a more dynamic marketplace, 
Microsoft has surpassed even the government's complaints about their 
business practices. With an objective group of experts to monitor 
implementation of the plan, there should no longer be a need to 
bring this dispute into the legal system.
    Our federal and state governments have better things to spend 
their money on than pursuing this case any further. Please let 
Microsoft get back to developing great products without distraction 
and the government to get back to dealing with the real needs of 
protecting national security.
    Thank you for your support.
    Please know that I have been a Microsoft user for about 14 years 
and they have provided a very user friendly product at a reasonable 
price. Microsoft Word exceeds the competition in quality and price. 
Please stop this action which will only hurt the consumer. The cost 
of this case far exceeds the cost of many good projects and is only 
a punishment for the business community who are the real providers 
of jobs in America.
    Sincerely,
    Rev David J. Goodrich
    1-;802-;649-;1866
    Fax 1-;802-;649-;5601



MTC-00029632

5945 154th Place
Flushing, NY 11355-;5508
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As a computer professional in the technical industry that has 
been following this Microsoft antitrust case, I think it is grossly 
unfair that this case was brought about in the first place.
    Microsoft has been great for the economy, the technical sector, 
and the NASDAQ. It is coincidental that all of these sectors are way 
down now that Microsoft is in the middle of litigation. If we leave 
the settlement as it stands and not pursue further litigation, it 
would be of great benefit to us in the end.
    Microsoft did not get off as easy as its competitor's would have 
you think. After intense negotiations and mediation, they agreed to 
terms well beyond what is expected in any antitrust case. I 
understand that Microsoft agreed to disclose various internal 
interfaces in their operating system to competitors. I cannot think 
of any other software company that would risk their proprietary 
source code bring exposed to the competition for their use. 
Apparently, the sacrifice Microsoft is willing to make is not 
enough. Everyone (the states and the competition) wants more.
    Enough is enough. Microsoft should not be penalized because of 
other companies inability to compete on level ground--;Whatever 
happened to free enterprise? Litigation is bad for the economy. Let 
us go with the settlement and not pursue any further litigation. In 
addition, let's focus on rebuilding our economy.
    Thank you.



MTC-00029633

1512 N. Elsea Smith Road
Independence, M064056
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I was pleased to learn that the Justice Department has reached a 
proposed settlement agreement in the Microsoft litigation.
    You now have the opportunity to clean up the mess created by 
your predecessor. Microsoft was the target of this litigation 
because of its size and because of its great degree of success. Your 
implementation of this settlement will bring an end to the political 
witch-hunt.
    Microsoft has placed a number of concrete proposals on the table 
to resolve the case. They have agreed to changes in almost every 
aspect of their business operations, from pricing, to distribution, 
to system design. These changes, if implemented, should provide 
additional competitive opportunities for Microsoft's competitors and 
more choice for computer users.
    Please go forward with the settlement and let Microsoft get back 
to business.
    Sincerely,
    Mark Zachgo



MTC-00029634

1512 N. Elsea Smith Road
Independence, MO 64056
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I was pleased to learn that the Justice Department has reached a 
proposed settlement agreement in the Microsoft litigation.
    You now have the opportunity to clean up the mess created by 
your predecessor. Microsoft was the target of this litigation 
because of its size and because of its great degree of success. Your 
implementation of this settlement will bring an end to the political 
witch-hunt.
    Microsoft has placed a number of concrete proposals on the table 
to resolve the case. They have agreed to changes in almost every 
aspect of their business operations, from pricing, to distribution, 
to system design. These changes, if implemented, should provide 
additional competitive opportunities for Microsoft's competitors and 
more choice for computer users.
    Please go forward with the settlement and let Microsoft get back 
to business.
    Sincerely,
    Dawn M. Zachgo



MTC-00029636

Jason t. Rigsbee
9237 Estate Cove Circle
Riverview, Florida 33569-;3102 U.S.A.
Home: (813) 740-;2979 / Mobile: (813) 787-;5961
Facsimile: (630) 214-;4890
E-mail: [email protected]
World-Wide-Web: http:llwww.rigsbee.net
To: U.S. Department of Justice (Antitrust Division)
RE: Microsoft Settlement/Future Litigation
    I have no problem [along with the majority of all Americans] 
with what Microsoft has done to better the computer technology of 
today. Without the innovations and mindset of the president and 
founder, William Gates, the many luxuries we all enjoy as one world 
would cease. Microsoft is not an evil empire whose goal is to 
exploit the people of this country. However, its goal is to enhance 
and bring computer technology to a newer level that will better aid 
people throughout their daily activities. Microsoft must be allowed 
to bring the Internet into its operating system, make set-top boxes 
for televisions, or create the most dominant product since Windows; 
otherwise you [the government] have taken away one of the priceless 
commodities that this great nation was founded upon.
    If you are so bent on stopping a company's free will to 
innovate, you should turn your eyes on America Online. America 
Online (AOL) planned its big takeover of Netscape and its semi-
agreement with Sun Microsystems (by the way...both companies 
approached the government to pursue a case against Microsoft) at the 
same time as the Microsoft lawsuits. Isn't this a bit odd? If we are 
so worried about Microsoft's *LARGE* empire, shouldn't we be 
stepping on AOL's toes also? If you haven't been keeping up with 
current affairs...AOL has one goal, and that is to be number one and 
to destroy Microsoft. There is *NO* monopoly here.
    Sun Microsystems, America Online, and Oracle are using you [the 
government] to get back at Microsoft. They are using you [the 
government] to build their business and in using you hoping to get 
one step ahead. If you destroy Microsoft's ability to enhance its 
products m any way its competition will see the victory...not the 
American people you are trying to protect.
    A company [Microsoft] *MUST* be given the right to enhance its 
products in any way possible to benefit its customers. The Microsoft 
cases have gone on too long. I hope that you will favor the Justice 
Department's recommendation for compromise and disallow all current 
litigation against Microsoft.

[[Page 28697]]

    Sincerely,
    Jason L. Rigsbee
    Romans 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord 
shall be saved.



MTC-00029637

ALAN & NANCY STRAND
20100 156TH AVE. N.E
WOODINVILLE, WA 98072.
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 encourage the Department of Justice to 
accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement. This issue has been drug 
out for over three years now and it is time to put it to rest. 
Microsoft needs the chance to move on and put this government over 
regulation behind them.
    When I buy a Ford it does not come with Chew parts. Chew pans do 
not fit in Fords and nobody has a problem with that. Now Microsoft 
creates a product and is being sued because everyone else's products 
do not work perfectly with their products. Microsoft has agreed to 
provide their competitors with part of the Windows base code, in 
order for their competitors to create products that are more 
compatible with Microsoft's. This has never been done m any other 
industry and I do not see why it is being demanded from Microsoft.
    Microsoft has been harassed for too long. Demands have been made 
and agreed to that have never been made on any other company. Now it 
is time to allow Microsoft to move forward. The only way to move 
forward is to put this issue in the past. Please accept the 
Microsoft antitrust settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Alan Strand



MTC-00029638

James Wilkins
1901 Windsor Place
Findlay, OH 45840
January 16, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    After three long years, the antitrust case against Microsoft has 
been settled. I applaud this decision. 1 believe the initial lawsuit 
was wrong. It was, in my opinion, very counter-productive for the 
economy. Microsoft is one of the engines of our economy; the 
economic downturn we have experienced can be traced directly to the 
antitrust case against Microsoft.
    But it is time to go forward. Microsoft has agreed to a great 
number of demands from the Department of Justice; e.g. agreeing to a 
technical committee to monitor future actions; agreeing to design 
future versions of Windows with the ability to promote non-Microsoft 
software; agreeing not to retaliate against computer makers who send 
software that competes with Windows operating system. Microsoft is 
apparently trying to settle the case and get back to business. I 
agree with this. I urge you to give your support to the agreement 
between Microsoft and the Department of Justice.
    Sincerely,
    James Wilkins



MTC-00029639

January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania A?? NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The Department of Justice and Microsoft have ?? three-year-??, I 
want to ?? my support to ?? measure and ask that you do so also This 
has become more of a personal battle between Microsoft and its 
rivals such as ?? Microsystems, and AOL. It should be noted that ?? 
stock has gone down, while Microsoft's sto??k, despite all the legal 
problems, has stinted to rise, again. I believe Microsoft was one of 
the ?? of the ?? the technological world to be embraced by 
all--;providing lens of thousands of high??. It is on ?? part of 
?? nature that there are those who do not like the fact that some 
people are more successful than they, and they try to bring such 
individuals down.
    But ?? has now been ??, and we should let it stand. Mi?? many 
changes in their operations. Microsoft has agreed to help companies 
?? greater degree of reliability with regard to their networking 
software; M?? agreed to allow computer makers to ship non-Microsoft 
product to customers; Microsoft has agreed to design future versions 
of Windows with a device to make it easier to promote non-Microsoft 
software. Microsoft has even agreed to a technical committee to 
monitor future settlement adherence. This is more than fair and 
reasonable. I urge you to give your support to this agreement and 
allow us to get back to business and Bill G?? to his creativity.
    Sincerely,
    Paul?? Dreger



MTC-00029640

Donald Delahaut
260 Fernledge Drive
New Kensington, PA 15068-;4614
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing today to encourage the Department of Justice to 
accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement. As a member of the 
technology industry, I want to see Microsoft and the industry to 
move on. The suit has dragged on for over three years and has caused 
great damage to the entire industry.
    Some say that Microsoft is being treated leniently. In fact is 
quite tough. Microsoft has agreed to document and disclose, for use 
by its competitors, various interfaces that are internal to Windows' 
operating system products. Microsoft is virtually handing over their 
company secrets to their competitors. That is no getting off easy.
    In order to move forward Microsoft is giving in to a lot. The 
terms, of the settlement are fair and they should be accepted.



MTC-00029641

Louis Theriault
643 Yorkshire Drive
Oviedo, FL 32765-;8159
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Take a moment to reflect on what the breakup of ATT did to the 
phone industry. It created very poor phone service and drastically 
reduced innovation. If ATT were still together people would be 
looking and talking to each other over the connection instead of 
only talking to each other.
    This hindered innovation is a direct result of the breakup of 
ATT because it caused them to divert their attention from long 
overdue innovation.
    The same is true in Microsoft's case. Though I am glad that 
there has been no decision to break up Microsoft, the mere thought 
that this was considered is appalling. The way I see it, if I ran a 
company that was unable to keep up with my competition then the 
fault is mine and not my stronger competitor. I should therefore 
seek to strengthen my stance in the industry rather than seek 
corporate welfare from the government. Indeed, seeking the 
government's help to break up a company for your advantage only is a 
pitiful thing and I think the government should put a stop to it 
immediately!
    Look at all that Microsoft has conceded in this case. They have 
agreed to grant competitors greater access to Windows by creating 
new versions. In addition, they have agreed to give computer makers 
more flexibility to reconfigure Windows for interoperability with 
non-Microsoft software. In light of all the varied factors of this 
case and Microsoft's spirit of cooperation, please put an end to 
litigation in the interest of fairness.
    Sincerely,
    Louis Theriault



MTC-00029642

James Hahn
440 E 57th Street
New York, NY 10022
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Last November, Microsoft and the Department of Justice reached a 
settlement in the antitrust case. The settlement is currently being 
reviewed, and soon the courts will have to decide whether or not the 
settlement is acceptable. Microsoft competitors are touting the 
agreement as lenient towards Microsoft and harmful to the consumer. 
They would like nothing better than to see the settlement overturned 
and litigation against Microsoft continued. I disagree. Continued 
litigation, not settlement, would do the most damage to the 
consumer, and the settlement is anything but lenient.
    The settlement allows Microsoft to remain intact, but prohibits 
Microsoft from engaging in behaviors that would prevent other 
computer makers from having a fair chance to compete. For example, 
the settlement

[[Page 28698]]

requires that Microsoft disclose source code from the Windows 
operating system to its competitors for their use either in working 
independently or with Microsoft Microsoft will also furnish third 
parties acting within the limits of the settlement with a license to 
applicable intellectual property rights to prevent infringement. I 
do not think that Microsoft has been treated too mil?? in this case; 
in fact, in the interest of wrapping up the se??, Microsoft has 
agreed to a number of terms that extend to aspects of Microsoft not 
found to be in violation of ?? laws.
    The time has come for a decision to be made, whether or not it 
is in the best interests of the public to allow a ridiculous amount 
of time and money to be wasted in laughably ?? litigation, or if the 
technology industry should be permitted to return to normal and the 
economy to recover. I would like to see the consumer benefit from a 
return to nor?? in the economy and the computer industry, and I urge 
you ?? support the settlement. Enough is enough??
    Sincerely,
    James Hahn

 

MTC-00029643

January 17, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Justice Department
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft.
    At long last, this debacle of an antitrust trial between the 
government and Microsoft has sputtered to a settlement. While the 
settlement is weighed slightly against Microsoft, it at least has 
the advantage of ending the litigation.
    This entire lawsuit was, I believe, grounded in much 
misinformation and misunderstanding. A company's 
``dominance'' in any particular market does not 
necessarily mean that it has achieved that status through anything 
other than legal--;albeit aggressive--;means. I believe this 
to have always been true of Microsoft. Microsoft never manipulated 
the marketplace to force anyone to purchase its system. Rather, its 
pricing policies, its integration, and its reliability attracted 
most people to its product. This is enviable, not despicable.
    When our government engages in a mission to ``level the 
playing field'' for all, there is the natural side effect of 
having to ``dumb down'' those that have been successful, 
and force them to either step aside, or give away their hard-earned 
successes to those less fortunate souls who are not as creative or 
as industrious. This attitude is reflected in the settlement. 
Microsoft is being forced to give up some of its source code to 
others in order to satisfy the government need to level the IT 
playing field.
    While it is useless to object, I find that the settlement at 
least has the advantage of ending the contentious nature of the 
trial. For this reason alone, I find myself supporting it.
    Sincerely,
    Charles Aunger
    Chief Technology Officer
    PO BOX 470671,
    CELEBRATION, FLORIDA, 34747-;0671
    www.vhinternet.com.
    TEL: 407 709 6559 FAX: 407 650 2703

 

MTC-00029644

Lesa Stafford
3395 80th Road
Thayer, KS 66776
Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice
601 ``D'' Street NVV Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am glad to have this opportunity to express my opinion 
regarding the Microsoft antitrust case.
    I was relieved to learn that the Bush Administration had 
proposed a settlement that could soon end this costly endeavor. As a 
taxpaying citizen, I nave been concerned for quite some time over 
the high cost of continuing to pursue this case in court, From all I 
have read and experienced as a consumer in the marketplace, I am 
convinced that Microsoft has created no monopoly--;especially 
since computer products continue to become more affordable and not 
more expensive
    I firmly believe that the funds being spent to litigate this 
matter in court are desperately needed in other areas such as 
education and law enforcement, Therefore I urge the court to accept 
the proposed Microsoft settlement and free up tax dollars for 
matters that are truly critical to all our futures.
    Sincerely.
    Lesa Stafford
January 25,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The settlement reached in the Microsoft anti-trust dispute is 
essential to the continued success of America's technology industry 
in the world market. Our IT industry has floundered for the past 
three years since the inauguration of this anti-trust suit against 
Microsoft three years ago. This settlement is fair and is a prime 
opportunity to put this litigation behind us.
    Under the terms of the agreement, Microsoft has agreed to design 
all future versions of Windows to be more compatible with the 
products of its competitors. Microsoft has also agreed not to 
retaliate against any competitor who produces products that compete 
with its own. And, finally Microsoft has promised to report to a 
three person technical committee that will monitor Microsoft's 
compliance to these terms. I believe that this settlement is 
reasonable for the simple reason that it will allow Microsoft to get 
back to business without being pirated and split apart.
    Thank you for you help in this issue and for allowing me to 
express my opinion. Free enterprise is a precious commodity in this 
nation and it must be protected.
    Sincerely,
    James Lay
    3400 W Bristol Road
    Flint, MI 48507
    Made Up To a Quality ... Not Down To a Price !

 

MTC-00029646

January 23, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division Department of Justice
601 D Street NW. Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    As an employee for a large midwestern hospital. I see first hand 
the benefits of technology everyday. Whether it is computerized 
laser surgical tools or sophisticated medical record software 
packages, my employer relics everyday on constant innovation within 
the technology field to better serve our patients and community.
    The pervasive nature of technology continues to astound me...it 
seems as if virtually every thing we encounter has some kind of 
microchip inside. Is it any wonder then, that one of the largest 
computer companies in the world being involved in a major lawsuit 
would have an extraordinary impact on virtually every segment of our 
economy?
    As I understand it, there is a settlement before you that could 
bring closure to this matter very quickly. While I agree it is 
vitally important to protect consumers, it is also important to do 
what is prudent to protect our economy and to continue technological 
innovation. research and investment.
    The settlement before you addresses the concerns of the original 
complaint. All interested parties have approved it. Please give the 
settlement your final approval and help get the economy moving 
again.
    Sincerely;
    Terri Hasselman
Director of Major Gifts
Mercy Foundation
    1111 6th Avenue
    Des Moines.



MTC-00029647

Alba English
14113 Grant St
Overland Park, KS 66221
January 19. 2002
Ms. Renara B. Hensse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-;0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    It was music to my ears to learn that there can be a settlement 
soon in the antitrust case against Microsoft Corporation?
    I am confident that this settlement will have a positive impact 
on the ailing U.S. economy. Many of the investments citizens like my 
self have are directly related to the high-tech market place.
    With less government intrusion into private business and mote 
good old-fashioned competition in the marketplace, we can look 
forward to new growth in the U.S. economy. Enough taxpayer dollars 
have already been spent attempting to fix a problem that never 
existed.
    I appreciate your consideration of my view as you deliberate. It 
is important for you to support this settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Alba English
